Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to present a petition, signed by 850 members of the Provincial Entertainment Proprietors and Managers' Association, representing 900 cinematograph theatres, praying this honourable House to decline to give a Third Reading to the Cinematograph Films Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

MAHARAJA OF NABHA.

Mr. LANSBURY: 1 and 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) whether he is aware that His Highness the Maharaja of Nabha has applied to the Government of India, as well as the Government of the Punjab, for passports for himself, his wife the Maharanee, his son the heir apparent, and his other children, to proceed to Europe; whether he is aware that, although a considerable time has elapsed, the passports have not yet been granted; and whether he will instruct the Government of India to issue the passports without further delay;
(2) whether he is aware that His Highness the Maharaja of Nabha was prevented from attending the sessions of the Central Sikh League in Hoshiapur (the Punjab) owing to a Government ban against his entering the Punjab; how long this ban has been in operation; what is the reason; and whether he will advise the Government of India to have the ban lifted?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): It was one of the conditions, subject to which the
Maharaja of Nabha was permitted in 1923 to sever his connection with the administration of Nabha State, that he would not visit the Punjab or leave India except with the previous permission of the Government of India and subject to such conditions as they might impose. My Noble Friend is not prepared to take any action in the direction suggested in the questions.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I have an answer to the first question as to passports?

Earl WINTERTON: The restrictions which were accepted by the Maharaja of Nabha at the time of the original decision, by which he gave up the effective administration of the State, included the condition that he should not leave India.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it intended that this gentleman shall remain in India for the rest of his days and not be allowed to leave, and will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why?

Earl WINTERTON: It would be impossible in answer to a question to give all the reasons—they were very fully stated in 1923, I think it was in July of that year—which led the Government of India to take the action they did. There had been very serious scandals in the administration of the Nabha State— scandals of a character which, I think, no hon. Member on either side of the House can possibly support—and, as a result, certain conditions were accepted by the Maharaja, one of which was that he should give up the administration of the State, although he should retain his title. This particular provision that he should not leave India was one of those conditions. I can only add that the conduct of the Maharaja since those restrictions were accepted by him has not been such as to encourage the Government to agree to their removal.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the Maharaja flatly contradicts this statement that he voluntarily accepted the position in which he finds himself, and is it not a fact that he has an income in excess of the Viceroy's income? [Interruption.] I ask the right hon. Gentleman because I want to find out why he should be entitled to this sum of
money that he gets, seeing that he is unfit to administer the State?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not see any possible relevance between the income of the Maharaja of Nabha and his projected visit to Europe. I can only add, as I have already stated very clearly, and, I hope, simply, that the Government of India are not prepared to relax the restrictions which they imposed.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House of Commons the evidence on which this man was convicted of the offences the Noble Lord charges against him, so that this House may itself decide whether the Indian Government are acting justly towards him in preventing him from leaving the country.

Earl WINTERTON: The conditions which were imposed and accepted by the Maharaja occurred four years ago. A State communique was then issued by the Government of India. I am perfectly willing to give the hon. Member a copy of the communique. I am not going to impose the expense upon the public funds of publishing it now after four years. The hon. Gentleman asked a question about it at the time. I am quite willing to supply him with a copy.

SIRDAR DIWAN SINGH.

Mr. LANSBURY: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give full particulars of the arrest of Sirdar Diwan Singh, editor and proprietor of the weekly paper "Riyasat," at the instance of the Patiala Durbar; whether he is aware that this arrest took place in Delhi on 27th July without any warrant being produced either for arrest or for search; that the charge on which Sirdar Diwan Singh was arrested was preferred against him at the instance of one Jot Ram, of Patiala, on a charge of misappropriating a sum of Rs.300; that Sirdar Diwan Singh was able to produce, and did produce, to the police inspector a receipt by the complainant Jot Ram, which proved that the money had been handed over and acknowledged by the said Jot Ram in his own handwriting; that in spite of that the search was continued and Sirdar Diwan Singh taken into custody; and whether in the
whole circumstances he will have a full official inquiry made?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has received no information on the subject, and sees no reason to think that any action on his part is desirable. But if the hon. Member presses me to do so, I will inquire as to the facts.

Mr. LANSBURY: I shall be very much obliged to the Noble Lord for an inquiry into the facts and report to the House.

Earl WINTERTON: Certainly.

MINES (WOMEN).

Mr. DUNNICO: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many women are employed in the coal mines in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, and the Central Provinces, and in the salt mines of the Punjab; and wheher any proposals are being considered for the gradual withdrawal of these women?

Earl WINTERTON: As the answer to the first part of the question is in tabular form, it will, with the hon. Member's permission, be circulated in the Official Report. Proposals are under consideration for the gradual withdrawal of women employed below ground in the mines referred to.

Following is the table:


—
Average number of adult females employed daily


Below ground.*
A Dove ground.†
Total.


Coal Mines.





Bengal
8,010
4,961
12,971


Bihar and Orissa
18,910
12,828
31,738


Central Provinces
1,472
827
2,299


Salt Mines.





Punjab
223
—
223


* Figures in this column relate to the year 1926.


†Figures in this column relate to the year 1925, this being the latest available.

SANDHURST COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Mr. DUNNICO: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that dissatisfaction is being expressed in India at the delay in publishing the Report of the sub-committee
of the Indian Sandhurst Committee which visited Europe and America; whether he is aware that the publication of that Report was unanimously recommended by the members of the whole committee, including Sir Andrew Skeen, the chairman of the committee; and when this Report is likely to be published?

Earl WINTERTON: I am aware that the non-publication of the sub-committee's Report has been criticised in India. As regards the second part, I have no information beyond that contained in statements made in the Indian Legislature on the subject. As regards the third part, it is not proposed to publish the Report.

FLOODS, ORISSA.

Mr. DUNNICO: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India wehther he can give any particulars of the loss of human life, cattle and crops in the recent Orissa floods; and what is the present position in the distressed areas?

Earl WINTERTON: The number of human lives lost was about 50. The loss of cattle is estimated at about 5 per cent, of the total stock throughout the affected area of about 650 square miles. On 30th August it was stated in the Bihar and Orissa Legislative Council that the position regarding crops was still uncertain, and no later official information has been received on this point, but it is known that on 17th September Rs.37,000 had been sanctioned as gratuitous relief to the population affected, that advances amounting to Rs.2,40,000 had been made, and that further grants had been promised for the rebuilding of houses and the purchase of cattle when the full facts were known.

RAJPUTANA STATES (SLAVERY).

Mr. W. BAKER: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the allegations that slavery exists among the Darogha caste in the Rajputana States; and whether he will call for a Report on this subject?

Earl WINTERTON: Reports on the subject were received when the Geneva Slavery Convention was under consideration, and my Noble Friend does not think it necessary to call for any further
Report. The Government of India are satisfied that slavery in the ordinary sense of the term does not exist in any Indian State, but the attention of the rulers has been drawn to the provisions of the Convention.

STATUTORY COMMISSION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the cost of the Statutory Commission will be borne on the British or Indian Budget?

Earl WINTERTON: I will include this subject in the statement which I shall make in submitting to the House the Resolution regarding the Statutory Commission.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that mean that the Noble Lord declines to answer the question as to whether the cost of this Commission shall be borne by the English Budget or by the Indian Budget?

Earl WINTERTON: It does not mean that I decline to answer the question. It means that I will deal with the whole matter when I come to deal with the Resolution.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask for this definite information now, as the question appears on the Paper? I wish to know whether the cost falls on England or on India.

Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to wait until I move the Resolution to obtain that information.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any reason, Mr. Speaker, why the House of Commons should not know what the Government's intentions are in this matter now that there is a question on the Paper? Why should we be put off by some future statement of the Noble Lord? We have a perfect right to ask the question and to receive an answer here and now.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has any such right. I have given an undertaking, speaking with the authority attaching to my office, that I will answer the question when the Resolution is proposed. I think that is all to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled. If he asks as a matter of courtesy for an
answer why I cannot give an answer now, I may say that all sorts of considerations have to be taken into account, and I am prepared to give a definite and final answer when the Resolution is moved.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand that the Noble Lord and his Department have not given consideration to this question and that they were wholly surprised by the opposition in India?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman is not to suppose anything of the sort. I say that the matter is being given consideration at this moment.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether the Government have taken a decision on this matter?

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman will get his answer when I come to propose the Resolution.

OFFICERS, RANGOON (ALLOWANCES).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 9.
asked the Under - Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the discontent among officials stationed at Rangoon, under the control of the Government of India, owing to the withdrawal of the Burma allowance which is still payable to officials under the jurisdiction of the Government of Burma, and the grant of an allowance which is much smaller than that granted by the Government of Burma; and what are the reasons for this differentiation in the rate of pay to these respective officers?

Earl WINTERTON: I am aware that such representations have been made. But the power to fix compensatory allowances has been delegated to the Government of India in the case of officers under their control, and to local governments in other cases. My Noble Friend is not prepared to interfere with their discretion in the matter.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my Noble Friend say what are the reasons for the differentiation, the two officers doing exactly the same kind of work?

Earl WINTERTON: I cannot altogether accept my hon. and gallant Friend's statement that there is, in fact, a differentiation in pay, but the matter is one
for the Government of India to deal with, and my Noble Friend cannot intervene in particular cases.

MEDICAL MISSION, CHINA.

Mr. THURTLE: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the reason for the refusal of the Government of India to allow the proposed medical mission of a non-political character to be sent to China?

Earl WINTERTON: The reasons for which facilities for the proposed medical mission to China were refused were firstly, that the grant of facilities for a party of British subjects to serve even as non-combatants with one or other of the contesting factions in the civil war in China would have been likely to be construed as a departure by His Majesty's Government from their attitude of strict impartiality; and, secondly, that, at a time when His Majesty's Government had caused all British subjects to be advised to withdraw from the interior of China, in order to avoid embarrassing incidents it was impossible to allow a considerable party of British subjects to proceed to those parts of China where such incidents would have been most likely to occur.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Noble Lord aware that a British officer, General Stokes, is serving with an army of Chang Tso-Lin? Why is there this differentiation of treatment?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

INDIANS IN UNITED STATES (NATURALISATION).

Mr. THURTLE: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many Indians have lost their American citizenship under the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America; and what steps, if any, the Government of India are taking in the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: According to the Government of India's information, the United States' Courts have cancelled naturalisation in about 30 cases. The matter is engaging the attention of the Government of India.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Government here taking any steps in the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. Member wishes to ask a question as regards the action which the American Government is taking in the matter, I think he should address it to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the Noble Lord say whether deprivation of American citizenship includes the right to hold land already in the possession of these Indians, or whether they retain all their rights?

Earl WINTERTON: I cannot answer that question offhand. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Member will put down -a question. The whole matter is receiving the attention of the Government of India and His Majesty's Government.

RESERVE BANK BILL.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the intentions of the Government with regard to the Indian Reserve Bank Bill; and whether any instructions were sent by the Secretary of State, or on his behalf, to the Government of India for its withdrawal?

Earl WINTERTON: The Finance Member of the Governor-General's Executive Council has just arrived in London for the purpose of discussing a scheme for the constitution of a Reserve Bank on the basis of share capital. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Finance Member in the Indian Legislative Assembly on 13th September last that the Bill had not been withdrawn. The present intention is to resume discussion of the Bill next Session. The report of the Debate in question is to be found in the Library.

OPIUM TRAFFIC, BURMA.

Mr. KELLY: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that at the monthly meeting of the Rangoon Corporation in September resolutions were passed to the effect that in their opinion the reopening of opium registers for Burma consumers was not desirable and not in the public interest,, and urging His Majesty's Government to veto the proposal to legalise the sale of opium in Rangoon; and what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: I have seen a Press report of the resolutions referred to. The Government of Burma had already decided not to re-open the opium registers for Burman consumers without a clear mandate from those affected. The other resolution referred not to opium but to ganga. As regards the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that excise is a transferred subject.

COUNCIL OF INDIA.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the average number of meetings per annum of the Council of India; whether any of its members, or the Council as a whole, are consulted by the Secretary of State for India; and, if not, what functions does it actually perform?

Earl WINTERTON: Plenary sessions of the Council of India under the presidency of the Secretary of State, and meetings of its various Committees, are normally held every week. Its functions are prescribed by the Government of India Act.

EUROPEAN ENGINEER OFFICERS (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of post-War conditions and of the efforts to meet those conditions in the case of other services by the grant of the recommendations of the Lee Commission, the Government will reconsider the claim of some 40 European officers of the Indian service of engineers appointed from the Indian engineering colleges to the same status as to pay and allowances as that of officers of their own and other services recruited in England, especially in view of the wording of the Government of India, Finance Department, Resolution No. 1559 E. A., dated 16th August, 1921, which placed officers of Indian domicile in certain other services on the same footing as regards the grant of overseas pay as officers of European domicile, and of the fact that this concession has been extended in a modified form to officers of the Indian Foreign Service and granted to officers similarly situated in all other services?

Earl WINTERTON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 11th July. The case of these
officers has been very carefully considered by my Noble Friend, and he regrets that it is not possible to reconsider the decision arrived at. I would point out that the resolution to which my hon. Friend refers is not relevant, as it applied only to officers who were members of the services specified when overseas pay was first introduced; the officers to whom the question relates were at that time members not of an All-India Service, but of the Provincial Engineering Service.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Has the Secretary of State taken into consideration the fact that these men are doing precisely the same work as European officers for the same service, recruited in this country, and that the conditions for which they were recruited do not apply to-day owing to changed circumstances?

Earl WINTERTON: My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter before. I can only answer now that the position has been considered very carefully, and for the reasons which I have stated the Secretary of State cannot accept the applications of these men.

NEW HEBRIDES (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Viscount SANDON: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet come to any decision on the Report of the Commission of investigation into the present position in the New Hebrides?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Report is still under consideration.

EAST AND CENTRAL AFRICA (COMMISSION).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the names of the members of the Commission which is going to East Africa?

Mr. W. BAKER: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the members of the proposed East African Commission have yet been appointed; and, if not, whether an opportunity will be given to Members of
this House to discuss the personnel of this Commission before such appointments are made?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Commission which is to proceed to East and Central Africa has been constituted as follows:

The Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton Young, M.P. (Chairman),

Sir Reginald Mant,

Sir George Schuster, and

Mr. J. H. Oldham.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why has this-Government not followed the precedent of the Labour Government in appointing upon this important Commission some Member representing the Opposition?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: This is not a political appointment. We have put on the Commission a member of the Council of India, the late financial adviser to the Sudan Government, and Mr. Oldham. We cannot enlarge the Commission,, although we have had very considerable representations to enlarge it. It is large enough as it is.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Is not the appointment of the right hon. Member for Norwich (Sir Hilton Young) a purely political appointment?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The right hon. Member for Norwich happens to be a Member of this House, but, as the major consideration resolves on the question of finance, the unique financial experience of the right hon. Member was one of the principal reasons why he has been selected.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has not the right hon. Member for Norwich been a member of several parties in this House?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman correct in saying that the subject for consideration by this Commission is principally a financial one? Is he not going to interfere with the representation in the various legislative assemblies in East Africa of settlers, as opposed to Indians and natives?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That arises in one particular Colony. In the event of a scheme of federation being devised by the Commission, that scheme of federation is subject to further consideration by all concerned, including His Majesty's
Government. In the Terms of Reference His Majesty's Government kept an open mind on the main issue.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that this Commission can report without trenching on that extremely contentious subject?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No. I do not think it can possibly report without reference to that particular item in the Terms of Reference.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case, why is- not the Opposition represented on the Commission?

Viscount SANDON: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Terms of Reference given to the East African Federation Commission will be so drawn as to include the possibility of the division of the territory of Northern Rhodesia into three, the west to the Home Government as a native State, the railway corridor to Southern Rhodesia, and the north-east to a possible confederation with Nyasaland, and perhaps others?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Terms of Reference of the Commission are set out in the White Paper (Command 2904) published last July. If the Noble Lord will refer to that Paper, he will see that the possibility which he mentions is not excluded from the Terms of Reference.

Sir SYDNEY HENN: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Southern Rhodesia is to be included in the purview of the East Africa Commission on closer union?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No change is contemplated in the Terms of Reference already laid down, but arrangements have been made for the Commission to stay a few days at Salisbury for the purpose of conferring with the Government of Southern Rhodesia.

Sir S. HENN: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what route has been mapped out for the East Africa Commission on Closer Union; when it is expected to leave this country for East Africa; and how long1 it is expected to be absent on its mission?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Commission will leave this country on the 22nd December and will travel to Uganda via
Trieste, Cairo, Khartum and the Nile. It will then proceed from Uganda to Kenya, Tanganyika, Zanzibar, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. It will spend a few days at Salisbury in Southern Rhodesia en route for Livingstone and will return from Cape Town. It is not yet possible to say how long the Commission will be absent.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

MASAI TRIBE (ARMS).

Mr. SNELL: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when orders were given by the Governor of Kenya Colony to disarm the Masai tribe of their fighting spears; and the number of the members of this tribe who, since they were deprived of the means of defence which their spears provided, have been attacked and injured by wild beasts?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware that any general order has been given by the Governor of the nature indicated, but by the Native Authority Ordinance the headman is empowered either of his own motion or under the orders of a senior commissioner or district commissioner to prohibit or restrict the carrying of arms, and such an order was in fact made in 1922 upon one of the Masai tribes as a punishment for certain thefts and murder. I have no reason to suppose that this exercise of authority has led to the consequences suggested.

DEFENCE FORCE ORDINANCE.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Bill imposing conscription on adult males in Kenya has been finally allowed by the Colonial Office; whether under it the oath, of allegiance to the King is excluded from the terms of servivce; what is the estimated number of persons to whom it will apply; and what is the number of persons in the Colony who petitioned against it"?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand the hon. Member to refer to the Defence Force Ordinance which imposes an obligation to serve in the Force upon able-bodied male British subjects of pure European descent of over 18 and under 50 years of age. In that case the answer
to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I have already asked the Governor to report the total number of men likely to be enrolled in the new Force. I was informed by the Acting Governor that there were 1,397 signatories to the only petition that had been circulated in the Colony against the Bill.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can the Under-Secretary tell us whether in the original drafts of this Measure the oath of allegiance to the King was included; and what were the considerations which in the opinion of the Government justified them in agreeing to a Measure from which this oath is expunged?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is quite true that as originally drafted the oath of allegiance was in. The matter was referred to the Committee of Imperial Defence here, and they advised us that it would be contrary to precedent, as it does not agree with our own military service Acts. It was unsuitable; and the Government had no option but to delete it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the case that these 1,300 signatures against this Measure represent fully one-tenth of the whole white population of the Colony?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, it it about one-tenth.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is the analogy in regard to our own military service Acts at all complete? This is a matter of conscription.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a matter of argument.

NATIVE LAND TRUST.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to announce the conditions and membership of the proposed native land trust for Kenya Colony?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir. This matter was further discussed with the Governor shortly before his departure from this country, and I am awaiting the further draft legislation which was to be prepared after his return to the Colony.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will that also await the recommendations of the Commission?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No. The matter was fully discussed between my right hon. Friend and the existing Government.

ROAD WORK (WOMEN AND CHILDREN).

Mr. KELLY: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make any statement upon the alleged employment of children and women in Kenya Colony for the making and upkeep of roads?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Acting Governor of Kenya has reported that the compulsory employment of women and children on road work, or indeed on any form of labour, is not allowed by the Colonial Government and that no such labour has been called out at any time. It has occasionally happened that male natives, on being called up for labour on the maintenance of roads under the Native Authority Ordnance, send out women and children in their place; but it is an express standing instruction that, in such an event, the women and children should at once be sent back by the person in charge of the work and the defaulting male prosecuted.

Mr. KELLY: Will the Under-Secretary say whether women and children have been engaged on this work during the last year?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have had no case in the last year.

ACTING GOVERNOR (UNOFFICIAL CONFERENCE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that during a recent unofficial conference of Kenya settlers, at which resolutions were moved of a controversial nature, the Acting Governor attended and addressed this conference; and whether he is prepared to intimate to the Kenya Government the undesirability of prominent officials being associated with conferences called to discuss matters of such controversial character?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I presume that the right hon. and gallant Member refers to the East African unofficial conference which recently met at Nairobi. I know
of no official association with the conference beyond the fact that the formal opening ceremony was performed by the Acting Governor of Kenya, a course which follows the precedent of the conference at Livingstone and to which I see no objection.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case, will the Governor also open the Indian Congress to be held in East Africa?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I must have notice of that question.

EAST AFRICAN LANDS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the total acreage of land alienated in freehold title to the East African Lands Development Company; whether the ownership of this land was purchased direct from the Kenya Government; and, if so, at what total price, and to what account, were the proceeds of the sale credited?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The original agreement with the company made in 1904 dealt with 500 square miles which were not alienated in freehold but leased by the Commissioner of the East Africa Protectorate for 25 years with the right to the company, upon the completion of a survey and the establishment and stocking of five farms of not less than 5,000 acres each, to purchase the surface rights of the whole area for £50,000. A supplementary agreement made in 1915 provided for the sale by the Government at the request of the syndicate of the fee simple of any part of the land not being less than 100 acres in extent comprised in six blocks amounting in all to 270,000 acres. Of the proceeds of the sale 3s. 1½d. per acre was to be paid to the Government, but as the sales have taken place in Kenya I have no information of the actual area sold nor of the total price received. The proceeds are credited to the revenue of the Colony of Kenya.

Mr. BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement of the noble chairman of this company as to the value of this land now?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I did read, I confess casually, a report of this company's proceedings, but my attention was not specifically called to that particular point.

Mr. BROWN: I will put down another Question.

LOAN.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the amount of the proposed Kenya loan, the objects to which it is to be applied, and the terms of issue?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer the hon. Member to the prospectus which has been published this morning in the Press.

NATIVE RESERVES.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any steps have been taken to clear up the conflict of opinion with regard to the rights of natives occupying lands within native reserves in Kenya, as disclosed in the case of Douglas Morangi; and whether any action has been taken with a view to resettling the people dispossessed under the judgment in the above case?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have not yet received any information from the Colonial Government with regard to the case referred to, but I assume that it will be dealt with in the Report which I am now awaiting with regard to the question of individual tenure.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this question was first put as long ago as May last?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, but as my hon. Friend knows, the subject is a very complex one. We did discuss this matter with the Governor when he was on leave, and I expect a Report very soon.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is any special action being taken with regard to the dispossession by judgment in this case?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will make urgent inquiries.

ZANZIBAR (ECONOMY COMMITTEE).

Viscount SANDON: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he has taken on the Report of the Economy Committee in Zanzibar?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have not yet received this Report from the Resident, who will no doubt send it to me, with his recommendations, in connection with the draft Estimates for 1928.

TANGANYIKA (LAND SETTLEMENT).

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the Rungwe and other districts of Tanganyika the unrestricted freehold of large tracts of land has been either restored to or granted to German missions, and that the missions are disposing of such land to their fellow countrymen for settlement purposes; and what steps does he propose to take to prevent the commercialisation of land donated for other purposes and to secure for British settlers every facility to acquire the best lands upon at least as favourable terms as those upon which lands can be acquired by non-British settlers?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No freehold land has been either restored or granted to German missions in Tanganyika Territory.

MANDATED TERRITORIES (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE).

Mr. MONTAGUE: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the practice of requiring an oath of allegiance to the British Crown from the inhabitants of the mandated territory of Tanganyika applies to any mandated territory other than Tanganyika?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In Tanganyika an oath of allegiance is only required from members of the Legislative Council and from the holders of certain public offices. The constitutional position of the other British "B" mandated territories permits a similar requirement.

SIERRA LEONE (DOMESTIC SERVITUDE).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make with regard to conditions of slavery in the Sierra Leone Protectorate?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In July last the local Appeal Court by a majority of the Judges gave a decision which made it evident that in certain circumstances the existence of slavery in the Sierra Leone Protectorate could still be recognised by the Courts. Immediate steps were taken to remedy this defect in the law, and
in September an Ordinance was passed abolishing as from the 1st of January next the legal status of slavery throughout the Protectorate. This means that after the end of this year the last traces of domestic slavery will disappear from that territory. Papers on the subject will be laid before the House in due course.

Mr. W. BAKER: What steps have the Government taken to make it known to the slaves that they will be free from that date?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As the hon. Member is aware, this matter has achieved very wide publicity in Sierra Leone ever since this somewhat unexpected judgment was delivered. A special meeting of the Legislative Assembly was held in Freetown, to which the chiefs were summoned, and the matter has received a great deal of publicity in the Protectorate.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many slaves this Order will affect?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is impossible to say. It would be quite wrong to represent the conditions obtaining in the hinterland of the Sierra Leone Protectorate as slavery, as the word is commonly used. This is a particular case which arises over a question of domestic servitude. The question of what is called domestic servitude amongst primitive tribes in Africa is a difficult one to define. It is certainly the policy of the British Government to abolish anything which can in any way be described as slavery.

Mr. SPEAKER: Any further supplementary questions must be put on the Paper.

BRITISH EAST AFRICA (RAILWAY DEVELOPMENT).

Sir JOHN POWER: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made with railway development in British East Africa?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: So far as Kenya and Uganda are concerned, I have nothing to add to the statement accompanying the Estimates for Colonel Services 1927 on page 9 of Cmd. 2906. In Tanganyika work has
begun on the Arusha extension, and I hope that the Mwanza line will be opened during the first quarter of next year.

MALAY STATES (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).

Mr. WELLOCK: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the draft Bill for workmen's compensation in the Malay States has been completed; and when it is likely to be introduced?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The terms of a suitable Bill were the subject of communication during the summer of this year with the Federal Government, but I have as yet no information as to whether a Bill has been passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

WOMEN AND CHILD LABOUR.

Miss LAWRENCE: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will communicate to the House the terms of the draft Ordinances for the regulation of the labour of women and children in Palestine before they are confirmed by the Colonial Office?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have already authorised the High Commissioner to proceed at once with the enactment of the draft Ordinance in question.

Miss LAWRENCE: Will the draft Order be laid on the Table of the House and accessible to hon. Members?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is a pretty long document to have specially reprinted It is unusual to lay documents of this kind, especially as this will be the subject of close scrutiny by the International Labour Office and the Permanent Mandates Committee at Geneva, and I do not think I can make an exception in the case of this Ordinance, which has been the subject of very careful correspondence between the Government of Palestine and the home Government.

Miss LAWRENCE: In view of the importance of the question of child labour, will the Under-Secretary reconsider the matter if I put down another question?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I shall be happy to discuss the matter with the hon. Member. There has been a prolonged corre-
spondence as to the actual Clauses and draft of this Measure, and, quite frankly, I hope there will be no further delay.

Miss LAWRENCE: May I ask whether the Colonial Secretary will reconsider the matter if I put down another question? He stated in the House that he would do so; and in view of the statement that such an Order was in contemplation,, and in view of the concern with which many regard the question of child labour, I would ask him to reconsider it.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should like to press upon the hon. Member that I am as much concerned about the question of child labour as she is herself.

Miss LAWRENCE: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that there are more than 100 questions on the Order Paper to-day.

EARTHQUAKE SUFFERERS (RELIEF).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has come to a decision yet with regard to making a grant to Palestine for the relief of sufferers from the recent earthquake?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The High Commissioner has not asked for a grant, as the funds required have been raised by private subscription. The Palestine Government is providing a sum of £E100,000 to furnish credit facilities to persons whose property was affected by the earthquake.

GOLD COAST (GOLD MINES).

Mr. HAYES: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the death and invaliding rate in the Gold Coast gold mines?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The total number of workers employed in the gold mines in the Gold Coast during the year April, 1926, to March, 1927, was 8,240, and the deaths during this period were 98, of which 14 were due to accidents and 84 to diseases. The death rate was, therefore, approximately, 11.9 per 1,000. No figures are available as to the invaliding rate.

BECHUANALAND (CAPRIVI STRIP).

Mr. HAYES: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Caprivi strip of South-west Africa is still being administered by the Bechuanaland Government; and on whom devolves the responsibility of reporting upon the administration of this territory to the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am answering this question as it should have been addressed to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. The Caprivi strip is still administered by the authorities of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, but the responsibility for submitting reports upon the administration of this area to the League of Nations rests with His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa as the mandatory for South-west Africa.

HONG KONG (PIRACY PREVENTION).

Mr. WELLOCK: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Government proposes to abolish the Piracy Prevention Regulations; what is the reason for so doing; is he aware that the Inter-Departmental Conference on Piracy in Waters adjacent to' the Colony of Hong Kong, held in 1925, recommended co-operation with the Chinese authorities whenever opportunity occurred; and whether, with a view to securing the prevention of piracy, he will recommend the Hong Kong Government to avail itself of the opportunity which now presents itself of co-operating with the competent Chinese authorities for that purpose?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Sunning Piracy Commission recommended that the Regulations, should be abolished. Their views are contained in a Report of scene length on which I am awaiting the Governor's observations. I am aware of the terms of the Report of the Inter-Departmental Conference of 1924. The Hong Kong Government is only too anxious to co-operate with the Chinese authorities in suppressing pirates and has invited their assistance on many occasions, but those authorities appear to possess little, if any control over the areas in which the pirate lairs exist.

Mr. WELLOCK: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the pirates who are in the habit of landing their booty at Bias Bay are stated to have their headquarters in Hong Kong and Singapore; that the Hong Kong Government has been requested to expel pirates from Hong Kong and has neglected to do so; is he aware that the extradition of the pirate Liu Lun has been repeatedly asked for by the Chinese authorities at Canton and that this man was set free for a heavy sum of caution money instead of being extradited; whether he is aware that the Chinese Nationalist Government has established a piracy extirpation commission for the coasts of Weichow and Pao-on and proposed measures for securing extirpation to the Hong Kong Government; and what reply has been returned to these proposals?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The facts are as follows. The Government of Hong Kong has made repeated representations to the authorities at Canton urging them to eradicate the Bias Bay pirates and offering co-operation. A reply was received in which the allegation was made that these pirates had their headquarters in Hong Kong and elsewhere and a list of names was supplied to the Government of Hong Kong. It was exhaustively examined by the police, but unfortunately proved to be of no real value. The case of Lau Lun is a peculiar one. It is not connected with the Bias Bay piracies, since the crimes of which the Canton Government accused him were armed robbery and brigandage on land. Before any communication had reached the Governor from outside sources the police arrested Lau Lun as a person dangerous to peace and good order in the Colony. In accordance with the law he was liberated on heavy bail. The Canton authorities applied for his extradition as a brigand but he escaped by forfeiting his bail. I am aware that the Canton Government has appointed an anti-piracy commissioner but so far his activities have been nugatory. The Hong Kong Government has invited the Canton Government to confer with a view to arranging a scheme of action.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give
facilities for the passing into law of the Mental Deficiency Bill during the present Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at present able to add anything to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on Thursday last.

MINISTRIES (REORGANISATION).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what is the intention of the Government with regard to the proposed abolition of the Department of the Overseas Trade, the Mines Department, and the Ministry of Transport?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) on the 8th November.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to announce a final decision in this matter, or any part of it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope without doubt during this Session.

LICENSING LAWS.

Sir FRANK MEYER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to set up a commission or committee to inquire into the working of the present licensing laws for the regulation of the consumption of alcoholic liquor; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction with the present laws?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that there are many points in the existing licensing laws which may be said to dissatisfy different sets of opinions; and the whole question is under the consideration of the Government, who are not prepared to make a statement at present.

Sir F. MEYER: In considering the urgency of this question, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the agitation against removal of any present restrictions does not represent the mass of the people of this country?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large volume of retailers are in no way anxious for any extension of the 'hours of sale of liquor?

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Sir S. HENN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a grant made early in August by the Empire Marketing Board for geophysical survey; and whether, in view of the policy outlined by him in his speech to the House of Commons of 17th December, 1924, which allocated the expenditure of £1,000,000 per annum to improving the methods of marketing and preparing for market the food products of the Empire, there has been any change of policy since the date of that speech in regard to the expenditure of this money?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that a contribution has been approved from the Empire Marketing Fund towards the cost of a trial of an experimental kind to be made in conjunction with the Commonwealth Government of Australia, in geophysical methods of surveying, in order to try out certain new scientific methods. In the speech to which my hon. Friend refers I dealt with two separate matters. I gave the Terms of Reference of the Imperial Economic Committee, which were confined to the marketing of Empire food products, and I outlined in the most general terms the scope of a proposed grant which has since been voted by this House as the grant-in-aid of Empire marketing. The purpose of that grant was subsequently defined, in the Estimate which was laid before this House, as the furtherance of the marketing of Empire products in this country. I am entirely satisfied that the contribution to which my hon. Friend refers is both within the scope of the Empire Marketing Fund as thus defined and in accordance with the general indication which I gave to this House in December, 1924, of the proposed uses of the grant. No change of policy, therefore, is involved by the contribution in question, which was made upon the recommendation of a special Sub-Committee of the Cabinet Committee of Civil Research.

Sir S. HENN: Does the Prime Minister not think that an opportunity might be afforded to this House to discuss what is in fact a change of policy, and more particularly in connection with the Resolutions arrived at by the Imperial Conference of last year, which are very closely related to this subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can only repeat that in my view there has been no change of policy, but it is perfectly obvious that the matter can be raised when the next Estimate for the Empire Marketing Board comes before the House.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the advertisements of this Board about the Royal plum pudding, the only part that Great Britain gets is the breadcrumbs and the old beer?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

DISCUSSION.

Sir FRANK NELSON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if, having regard to the inclement weather of the past summer and the increasingly depressed condition of the industry, he can see his way to allot time before Christmas for a discussion on agriculture?

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I mention that this question was addressed by a Member of my party at the beginning of the Session, only to ask if the right hon. Gentleman has been able to find time for discussion of this very important subject, and whether he would say that the negotiations through the usual channels are going on?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already indicated that time will be afforded, so far as possible, for the discussion of subjects which Members desire to debate, but I am not in a position to name a date on which any particular subject can be discussed.

IMPORTED OATS (MARKING).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consider the desirability of requiring the marking, under the Merchandise Marks Act, of imported oats, in order to relieve home growers from unfair competition?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): An application for an Order-in-Council under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, to require the marking of imported oats has been received and referred to the Standing Committee for inquiry. It is expected that this inquiry will take place before the end of the year.

MILK CONSUMPTION.

Mr. HURD: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give an estimate of the increased consumption of liquid milk in London in gallons and percentages in the past five years, allowance being made for any increase in the population; and what educational and other means are being taken to increase this consumption in the interests of public health and agriculture?

Mr. GUINNESS: As the reply is rather long and contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

In the half-yearly report of the National Milk Publicity Council the following figures are given, compiled from statistics rendered by the four principal railway companies for milk brought into London by rail.

Year ending30th June
Number of gallons.
Per cent. increase since 1923



Millions.



1923
72
—


1924
77
7


1925
99
37


1926
107
48


1927
117
62

It is further estimated that at least five million gallons per annum are brought into London by road. The average increase in the population of Greater London over the period has been less than 50,000 per annum, that is, less than 1 per cent.

The question of educational and other steps to increase the consumption of milk is dealt with at some length in a Report on the Fluid Milk Market which is to be issued in a few days as No. 16 of the Economic Series. Briefly it may be said that up to the present such action has
been limited to the steps taken by the National Milk Publicity Council, which is maintained by voluntary contributions from farmers, manufacturers and distributors.

SUGAR BEET.

Mr. W. FOOT MITCHELL: 62.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government will consider the desirability of introducing legislation in order to ensure to the farmer a greater share of the beet-sugar subsidy now granted to manufacturers?

Mr. GUINNESS: The price for sugar beets is settled by negotiation between the National Farmers' Union and the factory proprietors, and I see no necessity for the legislation suggested.

Mr. MITCHELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the very large profits which are being made by the beet-sugar refineries, farmers are very dissatisfied with the proportion which they are receiving?

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member will be aware that after this year the subsidy drops, and the National Farmers' Union have negotiated fresh terms which, I think, are not altogether a bad bargain from their point of view. Taking the average yield and sugar content, the factories will bear more than half the decrease.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the Minister not aware that, even if you gave away the sugar for nothing, there would still be sufficient subsidy to show a profit; and is it not time to reduce that subsidy?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 63.
asked the Minis-ister of Agriculture the approximate increase in the number of workmen on the land as a result of the passing of the Sugar-Beet Act; and the number of workers on the land on the latest date for which figures are available and the number of employés on the land on 1st January, 1925?

Mr. GUINNESS: I regret that I am not in a position to furnish the information asked for in the first part of the hon. Member's Question. As regards the second part, the total number of agricultural workers employed on agricultural holdings above one acre in extent as returned on 4th June, 1927, in England and Wales was 774,500 and 803,300 on
the corresponding date in 1925. It is significant that regular workers in the same period have increased from 639,300 to 649,700, while casual workers have dropped from 164,000 to 124,800.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman attempted to obtain the figures asked for in the first part of the question, so that the House may have some idea of the real value, from an employment point of view, of the subsidy?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid it is impossible to get the figures. There are no means of doing so.

Mr. LANSBURY: If the right hon. Gentleman can get the figures on the one side, can he not also get the numbers of the men displaced in London, Liverpool and elsewhere through home-grown sugar beet displacing foreign sugar beet?

LAND DRAINAGE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many meetings have been held by the Land Drainage Committee; how frequently they meet; and from whom evidence, if any, is being taken?

Mr. GUINNESS: I assume the hon. Member refers to the Royal Commission on Land Drainage. I am informed that the Commission have held 25 meetings since their appointment in March last. As a rule they sit for three days a week in alternate weeks. They have heard evidence from the representatives of drainage authorities, county councils and other bodies and professional and private persons as well as from Government Departments, and they have carried out inspections of several drainage areas in this country as well as a tour in Holland. The whole of the evidence given before the Commission has been published.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to when the Report will be forthcoming?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think at a fairly early date.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. J. B. COUPER: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether any further steps have been taken, in conjunction with the Australian Government, for the appointment of a special Commission to inquire
into the development of the resources of Australia as proposed by the Prime Minister of Australia during his visit to this country last year; and, if so, whether the personnel of the Commission has been selected and the terms of reference agreed upon?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to make a full statement on this question at an early date.

Mr. LUNN: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Australian Government have had in existence for more than a year a Development and Immigration Commission, and have the British Government received any Report of their inquiries?

The PRIME MINISTER: I must ask for notice of that Question. I shall be pleased to answer it.

Mr. COUPER: 52.
asked the Prime Minister how many British families have been settled in Canada under the 3,000 families' scheme; what percentage of these might be regarded as failures; and what reasons can be ascribed for such failures?

The PRIME MINISTER: The total number of families settled under the 3,000 families' scheme is 2,545, representing 14,172 souls. Of the 2,375 families who had been settled up to the end of May last 94, or approximately 3 per cent., have left their farms, and it is estimated that from 80 to 90 per cent, of the settlers will ultimately be successful. Such failures as have occurred have been due to a settler or his wife proving unadaptable to farm life overseas, to ill-health, domestic troubles, etc.

Mr. COUPER: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgency of the emigration problem and his own expressed intention of encouraging the flow of British settlers from this country to Canada, he is in a position to make any statement regarding the financial and other steps which His Majesty's Government are prepared to take to stimulate such settlement; and whether he can state what results, if any, followed from the conversations between the hon. Robert Forke, Canadian Minister of Immigration, and the authorities in London during his recent visit to this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are anxious to co-operate with the Dominion and Provincial Governments of Canada in assisting British settlement in the Dominion, within the powers conferred upon them by the Empire Settlement Act, and in so far as financial and other considerations admit. As a result of Mr. Forke's visit a scheme has been concluded in co-operation with the Dominion Government and the Government of New Brunswick for the settlement of British families in that province, and similar schemes with other provinces are being discussed in Canada. A scheme has also been arranged for assisting British boys who go to Canada as farm workers to become farmers on their own account. The possibilities of a further extension of the policy of Empire settlement will be considered, in consultation with the Dominion authorities, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when he is in Ottawa next January.

Mr. COUPER: Has any change been suggested in the existing basis of fifty-fifty?

The PRIME MINISTER: I must ask for notice of that question.

COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

Mr. HARDIE: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received from the Committee investigating the use of the gus in British coal mines any Report; and, if so, when it is to be published?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I have been asked to reply. The investigation is proceeding with all speed, but I understand that it is not likely to be completed for some months

Mr. HARDIE: Are the Government not ashamed of thinking that something which is so obviously uncivilised and unchristian should require investigation by a Committee 1 Do they not feel ashamed that in a Christian State, so-called, it should be necessary to appoint a Committee to investigate a case where men naked and with ropes round their waists are hauling boxes of coal through a mine. Is that not an uncivilised and unchristian state of affairs? [HON. MEMBEES: "Order!"]

SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the total amount of the proportion of the head tax paid by the natives of Southern Rhodesia, which is transferred to the missionary societies for land occupation in the vicinity of missions, reaches a considerable sum, he is prepared to make a recommendation to the Rhodesian Government that, subject to the consent of the missionary societies, these proceeds should be placed in .a public trust fund, to be administered for the benefit of the native inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am answering this question, as it should have been addressed to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. I presume that the hon. Member refers to the rents payable to missions by natives in occupation of lands held by missions outside the native reserves. I understand that such rents, when charged, are used for mission purposes. The matter is not one in which it would be appropriate for His Majesty's Government to intervene, having regard to the self-governing status of Southern Rhodesia.

RIVER WYE (POLLUTION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the threatened pollution of the river Wye by a beet-sugar factory, or factories, has been brought to his notice; what action he is taking to prevent it; and whether this threatened pollution will be prevented?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am aware that proposals for the erection of a beet sugar factory in the watershed of the river Wye have been under consideration. I have no authority to prevent the erection or to control the working of a beet sugar or any other factory. I cannot provide the answer to the last part of the question, as it does not depend upon me.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has certain powers when the pollution actually begins, and can he not make the builders of this proposed factory take notice of those powers?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Ministry have no power of prosecution in the case of pollution. The powers are with the local health authority under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act of, I think, 1876, and with the Fishery Board under the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act, 1923. Though we have relations with the Fishery Board, we have no power to bring a prosecution.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could not the right hon. Gentleman drop the subsidy and so stop this pollution of the rivers?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is is not the
case that this proposed factory has been abandoned?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, that is so. I believe there are discussions in progress about another site in the same area.

ROYAL PARKS (HIRING OF SEATS).

Colonel DAY: 66.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the amount his Department received for the six months ended to the last convenient date from the proceeds of the hiring of seats in parks and open spaces under his control?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): During the six months ended 30th September, the sum of £4,262 was received in respect of the percentage of the gross receipts, in addition to rent at the rate of £5,000 per annum.

Colonel DAY: Is it not the fact that last year £11,000 was paid for the hire of these seats by the contractor, and the Government refused that amount this year, deciding that they wanted more money; and that now they have lost on the percentage basis?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Has the Office of Works considered the desirability of reducing the charge for these seats to the old figure of Id., having regard to the large number of seats unoccupied now that 2d. is being charged, and also having regard to the figures just given to the House?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I must ask for notice of both questions.

GROSVENOR HOUSE (IRON GATES)

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 67.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if the iron gates of Grosvenor House opening into Upper Grosvenor Street have been offered to his Department for erection in Hyde Park; if the offer was refused; and, if so, for what reason?

Sir V. HENDERSON: The screen and gates from Grosvenor House were offered to this Department, but after careful consideration it was decided that they could not be satisfactorily used either in Hyde Park or elsewhere.

ROYAL NAVY (NEW CONSTRUCTION).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 68.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is proposed to invite contracts for the completion of the new construction programme; and whether it will be possible to get the work in hand to assist in relieving unemployment during the ensuing winter?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): Most of the invitations to tender have already been issued, but the provision in the current' Estimates will not permit of work being started before February next.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the national yards have a prior claim?

HOUSING (SUBSIDY).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a grievance felt' by certain local authorities who, owing to the bad weather in June, July and August, were unable to complete their house-building schemes with the aid of the subsidy on which their calculations had been based before the reduction of the subsidy at the end of September; and whether he will consider introducing legislation which would enable him to pay the subsidy in full in such cases where the local authority is able to produce evidence of the justice of its claim?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. W. J. Baker) on the 8th November

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (WALES).

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received from the Insurance Committee for the county of Glamorgan a protest at Wales being ignored in the composition of the Pharmaceutical Distribution Committee and several like matters, coupled with a demand that Wales should be granted the same measure of autonomy in National Health Insurance matters as that granted to Scotland; and what steps he proposes to take?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has received a letter in the sense indicated by the hon. Member. The Pharmaceutical Distribution Committee was constituted on the same lines as the Medical Distribution Committee, which has never contained any separate representation of the Welsh Insurance Committees. The two committees are already sufficiently large, and my right hon. Friend sees no necessity to increase them. On the general question, I may say that the National Health Insurance Scheme in Wales is governed by the provisions of the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, and the National Health Insurance Act, 1924. There are separate National Health Insurance Funds for England and Wales, though owing to the relatively high cost of medical benefit in Wales provision has been made under the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926, for a payment by the National Health Insurance Fund to the Welsh National Health Insurance Fund to meet the additional cost. My right hon. Friend sees no sufficient reason for disturbing these arrangements.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is my hon. Friend aware that all the other Insurance Committees in Wales have adopted the resolutions passed by the Glamorgan Insurance Committee, and will the Minister
receive a deputation during this month to go into the complicate and intricate matters mentioned in the answer?

Sir K. WOOD: I will consider that and communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

SMALLPOX.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 72.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give the smallpox statistics for England and Wales for the months of August, September and October last, and the total number of cases since 1st January, 1927?

Sir K. WOOD: The numbers of cases of smallpox notified in the months of August, September and October were 564, 505 and 795, respectively, and the total number of notifications during the period from 2nd! January last to 5th November inclusive was 12,729. These figures are subject to revision.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it a fact that each case costs the public £150 to £200 for isolation and that the total cost of these cases for isolation is, therefore, several million pounds a year?

Sir K. WOOD: I must ask for notice of that question.

PUBLIC HEALTH SEEVICE.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 73.
asked the Minister of Health the number of medical officers of health, sanitary inspectors and health visitors in the public health service who are holding joint appointments?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is having a statement prepared, which he will forward to the hon. Member.

POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS, WEST HAM.

Mr. GROVES: 74.
asked the Minister of Health the average cost of maintenance of sick patients within the Central Home of the West Ham Union?

Sir K. WOOD: The expenditure in respect of sick patients of the Central Home of the West Ham Union is not separately distinguished in the returns made to my right hon. Friend's Depart-
ment. The average weekly expenditure per inmate of that institution for the year ended 31st March, 1927, was 31s. 0½d.

Mr. GROVES: 75.
asked the Minister of Health the average cost of maintenance of the patients at the Whipps Cross hospital of the West Ham Union?

Sir K. WOOD: In the returns made to my right hon. Friend's Department, the expenditure in respect of the Whipps Cross Hospital is not shown separately from that in respect of the Forest House and Forest House Cottages of the West Ham Union. The average weekly expenditure per inmate of this group of institutions for the year ended 31st March, 1927, was 45s. 10½d.

Mr. GROVES: 76.
asked the Minister I of Health whether he is aware that, owing to the pressure upon the ordinary , voluntary hospitals of the East End of London and their restriction of accommodation, there has been an increase in the number of patients sent by medical men to the Whipps Cross hospital of the West Ham Union; that these persons generally are working people who would not like normally to seek parish help, and that if they had been received into the ordinary hospital they would have been asked what they could afford to subscribe; that the West Ham Guardians make a detailed and heavy charge upon the whole of the members of the family of the inmate; and whether he will consider making such changes in medical treatment charges in such institutions that sick persons are only asked to subscribe similar sums to those charged by the local voluntary hospitals?

Sir K. WOOD: It is the duty of a board of guardians to take all reasonable steps for the recovery of the cost of any relief which they may afford to sick or other persons, and they could not lawfully adopt a system of small fixed charges or limit their purview in deciding upon such cases in the manner which the question suggests is adopted by the authorities of voluntary hospitals?

Mr. GROVES: Is it the hon. Gentleman's opinion that taking almost all the income of a patient is a reasonable contribution?

Sir K. WOOD: I should like to have notice of that question.

FRANCHISE LAW (POOR LAW RELIEF).

Captain A. EVANS: 69.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the Bradford Board of Guardians, and supported by the Cardiff Board of Guardians, to the effect that it is desirable, in the interests of public probity, that the Government should take the necessary steps to restore the disqualification of persons in receipt of relief from voting in elections, which was repealed by the Representation of the People Act, 1918, of Section 14 of the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act of 1876; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the resolution mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. A number of points arise in connection with the question of electoral reform which are receiving consideration by the Government, and I regret that my right hon. Friend is unable at present to make any statement on the subject.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (No. 2) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on Consideration), to be printed. [Bill 199.]

INDIAN CHURCH BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 200.]

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — PART I.—(Restrictions on Blind Booking and Advance Booking and Advance Booking of Films.)

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the Amendment first on the Order Paper—to leave out Clause 1—I have suggested that it might be more convenient for the House to have a Motion to leave out Part I, as that is what hon. Members desire to discuss. I am informed that that is agreeable to Members of the Opposition.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out Part I of the Bill.
I do not know, Sir, whether you have received a manuscript Amendment, which I put in to that effect. It seems to me that we can get the discussion perhaps better on Part I than on Clause 1. The Bill is divided into four Parts. The first Part, according to the Title, restricts "blind booking and advance booking of films," but, like a great deal in this Bill, this Title is wholly inadequate and by no means covers the results of Part I. Part I, as hon. Members will see in due course, not merely restricts blind booking, but prohibits it. It prohibits also what is known in the trade as block booking, and the restriction of advance booking is one which has only to be described in detail to the House in order to show an utterly futile interference with the ordinary transaction of business. These restrictions, it should be understood by the House, do not affect the whole of the cinematograph trade. There are three parties to this trade, leaving out the public—and I can assure hon. Members that the public have been left out of all consideration. There are three vested interests concerned. There are the producers, there are the exhibitors, and, in between, there is a nebulous body of wholesale dealers called renters, middlemen. This Part I, which pretends to restrict blind booking and advance booking, does nothing whatever to interfere with any business arrangements made between producers and renters, between
the producers and the middlemen; they can carry on in future as in the past. All that this Part I pretends to do is to interfere with the relations between the renter, the wholesale dealer, and the retailer, the exhibitor.
It has been complained—and, of course, it is a very good subject for discussion at a street corner—that we ought, in the interests of society, to prevent the retailer buying large blocks at once, that he ought, in the interests of society, to buy each film separately; and we are told also that he ought in every case to see what he is going to buy before he buys it, in his own interests, mark you. No doubt we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, when he comes to reply, how popular this idea is with the people whose enterprise we are seeking to restrict. He gets all his views from the trade association, which by no means represents the trade in this case.
I want the House to realise, in the first place, that these attempts by a Government Department to interfere in normal business transactions are quite wrong. There never has been, in this country at any rate, any previous attempt to say that an ordinary business transaction between two consenting parties shall not only be illegal in the sense of a contract not being able to be pleaded in a court of law, but shall involve both the parties taking part in it to a sentence of imprisonment. It is being made a crime by this Bill to do something that every other trade in this country has always done and that this trade has always done. We have got to look at this provision very carefully, apart altogether from whether there is or is not a public demand for this prohibition. You are saying to an ordinary tradesman, "You must not buy until you have seen the goods,"; you are saying to him in addition, " You cannot buy more than six months in advance of the time that you want to sell the goods; that is to say, you must not book more than six months ahead. You must not stock more than six months ahead. Otherwise, you go to prison." I should say it needed very strong argument indeed before you could persuade even a Tory House of Commons to accept such penalties and such restrictions upon the normal conduct of business. We saw during the War a certain amount of interference with business. It was necessary
in many cases, but generally we found that the interference asked by this House met its object.
My principal argument against Part I of this Bill, against these attempted interferences in business, is that they must necessarily fail in their object. We have already seen during the process of the Committee on this Bill two ways in which these restrictions can always be got round. I want the House to understand the two methods that are being adopted, because they illustrate admirably how easy it is to get through an Act of Parliament when both parties to a bargain want to get through it; and it also illustrates the ultimate results of any such action. The first method that has been proposed for getting round this prohibition is as follows: Under the Bill, it is illegal for a wholesaler to sell to the retailer before the film has been exhibited and registered. So what is proposed? The exhibitors, in order to get round this prohibition, in order to get their films booked up, and in order to get first cut at the things they want to show, say that in each locality they will form a co-operative body which will call itself, for instance, the Manchester Cooperative Renters or the Oldham Cooperative Renters. There will be five or six exhibitors in each of these groups; they will form themselves into a co-operative renting body. As a renting body, they can buy what they like from the producers, whether British or foreign, but, being not merely a renting body, but also exhibitors, they can then distribute these films to the individual members who compose that body. So, no crime being committed, they will be able to get what they want. I always believe in developing the co-operative movement in every way possible, and so does the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). We like the co-operative movement, and we have no objection to the development of that form of co-operative renting.
The other method of getting round this Bill is far more serious, and is one which, I think, every Member should understand. While the Bill was going through Committee, there was floated on the Stock Exchange a company with a capital of £2,500,000—a renting and producing company, British of course; that is to
say, British in name, and American in nature. What did they do 1 They were not merely a company for producing and renting British films, but also a company for acquiring British cinemas, and they have already acquired 50 large cinemas in this country. If the same firm be a renter and an exhibitor, then the Government cannot possibly by any Act of Parliament prohibit them passing on the films they get as renters to anyone of their particular theatres. It is no longer a bargain between two parties, but merely an internal concern of the company. Since the Bill has been going through that is not the only company that has been formed. Everywhere you 'have renters now purchasing cinemas in exactly the same way as, owing to the licensing legislation of the '90's, the brewers of this country bought up licensed houses. They are acquiring a lot, and we are deliberately fostering the formation of trusts in the cinema industry —vertical trusts, which will control, not merely the producing and renting, but the exhibiting side of the business also. The natural result is that the whole industry suffers, and in the long run the public will suffer through having the industry formed into a trust. The prime object of the formation of the trust is to get round the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. Members will see, therefore, the difficulty of the task that has been set the right hon. Gentleman in carrying out the proposed legislation to prevent block booking and advance booking of films and in carrying out his intention of interfering with all the details of this industry.
4.0 p.m.
But, the difficulties being there, I want the House to look for a moment at how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to meet them. If you want to stop any retail trade buying wholesale or want to stop any retail trade buying anything they have not seen—if you want, for instance, to stop a publisher buying a novel before he has actually seen the proofs, or if you want to stop a person buying a building before he has seen the plan—you can stop them in two ways. You can either make it a crime to sign any agreement between two parties—for instance, I signed an agreement the other day with a publisher; you can make that a crime and send anybody signing such an agreement to prison—or you can deal with him in another way. You can say
that any agreement come to by parties in these circumstances shall be null and of no avail at law. That is to say, that people coming to these agreements do so at their own risk and cannot got to law on the agreement. That is the way I should have wanted to deal with this problem. You could have said to every retailer, to every exhibitor, " If you come to an agreement contrary to the law with a renter I shall not punish you, I shall not interfere in your dealings, I shall not want to register your films, I shall not want to interfere at every turn in your business; but I warn you that if you go to Court on this agreement you will not be able to prove your case." That is the way the right hon. Gentleman could naturally have tackled this problem. It would have been sufficient, but he did not. He did not for a very good reason—not because he did not know it was the best way of doing it, but because the vested interests went for him and said, "No, this will not do, you must make it a crime to do this, or people will still go on doing it even though they cannot sue at law in connection with these agreements."
The right hon. Gentleman has been misled throughout by the cinematograph exhibitors. He has trusted not to his own intelligence, not to what he believes to be the interest of the public, but has trusted far too much to the vested interests who have had dealings with him. The real position is that the right hon. Gentleman has been threatening this trade with legislation like this for a long time. His threats have been taken much too seriously by the interests concerned. They have conceived that he could do as he liked with them, and therefore the executive administrations of some of these trade associations have consented to legislation. Having committed themselves to legislation, they have put themselves in opposition to the constituent members of their trade, and have, ever since, been trying to justify their action, and are advocating this Bill which is opposed by the various individual members of the organisations. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he commits the country permanently to this perfectly futile measure for stopping blind booking, block booking and all the rest of it, to try once more, even at this late hour, to find out
whether they would not like to drop these provisions, which, since we have got the quota in the Bill, are utterly valueless so far as the production of British films is concerned and can only be a nuisance to everybody engaged in the industry.
Can our reasonable objections to Part I be met? This is what I am proposing to the right hon. Gentleman. First of all I ask that he should drop all these provisions. He would still have his quota. The British industry in the film business would be in exactly the same position if he dropped it. Only his face would suffer. If he cannot drop Part I now, could he do one or two other things in connection with it 1 Could he possibly change the methods? Could he make it not a penal offence to sign an agreement, but rely upon the simpler and more normal method of saying such an agreement shall not be enforceable at law 1 I am afraid his silence indicates that he cannot meet us on that point. I hope he will meet the point by a way which will do a further benefit to British trade by exempting British-produced films from the interference and nuisance of Part I of the Bill. Knowing the standard of British films, as hon. Members do, could we not say that exhibitors shall be allowed to book them in advance 1 Should we not be justified in giving British-produced films that advantage over all this foreign stuff and allow them to be booked in advance, to be booked in block and to be booked by small cinema houses without waiting six months after registration? It would give the production of British films in this country an enormous fillip if they, at least, could escape from these absurd restrictions; and I may add that if they should escape I hope the time would come when others would escape also.
The next suggestion I have to make— I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept this, but I think he might if it were pressed—is that Clause 2, dealing with advance booking, should come out. I hope to deal further with that when Clause 2 is reached. That would remove this impertinent interference with ordinary business of which Clause 2 is the worst example. To say to a man, "You may see what you want to buy, but you may not buy it for six months, you must wait and wait till I give you permission to
buy," appears to me to be the most gratuitous impertinence even in this Bill. It would meet the Opposition to a certain extent if the Government would drop the provisions relating to advance booking. Clause 3, which we shall debate later, is a perfect gem of a Clause. It is the first time we have put into an Act of Parliament a Clause saying that all contracts made before the passing of the Bill, whichever party to the contract they shall benefit, shall be wiped out and shall no longer have effect. That is a very good precedent. Once Clause 4 is in, the new Labour Government of the future will be able to act stringently. It will be a valuable precedent. Still, I do not like even a Labour Government setting precedents, which would enable people to scrap definite, legal, binding arrangements which have been come to between two parties. I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot meet us on this point.
Finally, there is this: The House will realise that in going through Committee we did get something. The Committee made the Bill worse in many respects, but at any rate they said that this impertinent quota system should continue only for 12 years, and that then people should be able to buy what they like. Could not we say that this interference should also come to an end at the same time; that Part I should have a time limit in the same way as Parts II, III and IV of the Bill. I would like to cut out the whole of Part I and to leave perfectly legal that which is perfectly legal in every other trade and profession in this country; but if that cannot be done let us at any rate water down the draconic severity of these restrictions, so that we may be able to say that at least on the Report Stage common sense prevailed.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): If I may say so, I think the course proposed of taking a general Debate on Part I is a very convenient and businesslike course, but I think the House must have been a little surprised at the Motion tabled by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). If hon. Members will cast their minds back to what took place on the Second Read-
ing of this Bill, they will remember a Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and moved by him, in these terms:
This House, whilst welcoming proposals to restrict blind booking of cinematograph films, thus providing a fair field for British producers, cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which compels British traders to supply goods irrespective of their comparative merits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1927; col. 2050, Vol. 203.]
I shall deal with the second part of that resolution when we come to the later parts of the Bill; but the Leader of the Opposition, in summing up his case, said:
My conclusion is, that the exhibitor should be freed from oppressive contracts and should be freed from booking long ahead against his own will films he has never seen and about which he knows nothing."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1927; col. 2057, Vol. 203.]
That was the considered view of the Labour party.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman say this was our considered view? Is he not aware that neither our party nor his party, nor even his own Department, understood the details of the Bill?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; I really would not join with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in so traducing the intelligence, the ability and the industry of his leader. I am quite sure that when the Leader of the Opposition presents a considered Motion to the House, whether it foe right or wrong, it is at least founded upon a careful consideration and a careful study of all the facts and is his considered view. I cannot say what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman understood, but I am quite sure that I myself and the Leader of the Opposition understood quite well what were the terms of the Bill.
Indeed, a demand for it had come from other Members of the party. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), before, I think, he transferred his allegiance, expressed from the other benches views in favour of legislation in these terms. Week after week he pressed me, at Question Time on Tuesdays, to say when I was going to introduce legislation in order to stop blind booking and block booking, and I think he was quite right
so to press me. He asked me at Question Time whether I did not realise that there was a keen demand in the trade. I said to him that before a proposal was put before the House I thought it desirable that the Imperial Conference should have an opportunity of considering it, and, after the Imperial Conference, I was glad to be able to come to the House reinforced, not only by his view, but by the view of the Dominion Governments, in the opinion that legislation of this kind was desirable. The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day) has also been an eloquent contributor to our Debates on this subject. He also pressed me in those early days. He was quite well aware of the position, even before the Bill was introduced. As far back as December, 1925, he asked the President of the Board of Trade:
If he is aware of the dissatisfaction being expressed amongst British film manufacturers in regard to the importation of cheap American films; and whether he will consider putting an end to the advanced booking of blocks of cheap American films?" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1925; col. 1217, Vol. 189.]
I said that the proposal of the hon. member was under consideration. It is idle, therefore, to say that either the Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition generally did not fully understand the subject referred to in the Motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. And not only did the Opposition support it. This is not a proposal on the part of the Board of Trade to force something upon an unwilling industry. This proposal to restrict blind booking and block booking was made by the trade itself, not at the invitation of the Board of Trade, and was the considered judgment of the trade before ever the Board of Trade moved at all.
Part I was framed in response to the request of both the exhibitors and producers that the Government should frame legislation to assist them in this respect. They not only took a plebiscite on the matter in which 1,704 voted for the abolition of blind booking and block booking, .as against 198, but they actually framed a Bill, and there can be no doubt as to what was in their minds. Anyone who has been acquainted with this industry knows that the argument drawn from other trades of buying an ordinary commodity forward has no application at all.
In other cases people are buying an article which is the same every time, or they are buying something of which they are willing buyers, and are fairly sure of what is going to be delivered to them. If people are not sure about it, the hon. and gallant Member, who has great claim to business experience, will agree that they take very good care to buy goods by sample, with a condition in the contract that the bulk when delivered shall come up to sample. In this industry alone the buyers, the exhibitors, have been forced to take quantities of films which they have never seen, which have not even been produced, and to take them to the exclusion of other films. They are not willing parties. They do not know what they are buying. I have seen contracts in which as many as 64 films have had to be taken by exhibiting houses in order to get one or two special films. It is against this that the trade itself, not only the producers but the exhibitors, have most vehemently protested.
That Part of the Bill we are now asked to withdraw is the one Part of the Bill upon which there is complete unanimity, the one part which was generally accepted in principle in this House. As time has gone on public opinion not only here but elsewhere has reinforced the wisdom of this. Even in the United States of America there has recently been a movement on foot, and an appeal made to the Federal Trade Commission to interfere with block booking and blind booking in the United States itself, and I understand the Commission has made preliminary inquiry and ordered a general inquiry with a view, possibly, to making an order. For all these reasons—reasons which were debated on the Second Reading of this Bill—I hope the House will retain this Part of the Bill.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made one or two suggestions of detail. The first was that this part of the Bill should be made temporary, but I have made a very great concession in making the quota provision of the Bill temporary. I thought that was the second point which the Leader of the Opposition made in his speech on the Second Reading. He said he wanted to be quite fair. He disagreed with the system, but if the system of quota was to be adopted, it ought to be a temporary quota. I must say I thought there was considerable reason in that when it was
discussed in Committee, and in Committee we amended the Bill by making the quota provision of a temporary character and reducing the total maximum of the quota. But this provision stands on a different footing. If blind booking or block booking is a bad thing in itself, we ought to legislate permanently against it, and not make it dependent on the quota, which is an entirely different proposition.
Then the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said I ought not to make the making of a contract invalid. In Committee the Solicitor-General promised to look into one point in that, and I agree that the Clause does need Amendment in one respect, so as to make it plain that a contract made outside the jurisdiction is invalid. As regards the argument which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman used about the possibility of getting round the Act, if people want to get round it, I do think the general disposition in this country when an Act of Parliament is passed is to keep it, and not break it. But the whole of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument in that direction surely shows that the penalty Clause is a necessary Clause, and that you cannot, if this thing is to be made illegal, leave it simply to the invalidation of a contract, but you must make it a prohibited act.
While it is plainly necessary to maintain Part I, may I take this opportunity of making certain other suggestions, some of which touch Part I, some of which touch other points in the Bill? One of the broad issues between us was the time limit. Upon that we have already made a variation in the Bill. The quota is only to last 12 years, and it is cut down to a maximum of 20 per cent. There was another point to which great importance was attached in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman, and that was a fear which, as far as I am concerned, is unfounded, lest the cost of administration should be piled up, and a hope that the administration would be kept as simple as possible, because if you keep costs down administration must be simple. In Committee I gave a forecast of what the general expenditure would be. It was a modest amount, but I am quite prepared, later on in the Bill, to insert a provision to insure that not only I but my successors are kept within those modest limits, and I should be prepared to put a pro
vision in that fees be charged in accordance with the scale I indicated to the Committee, which, I think, will go a very long way to dispel any anxiety which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends have on that score. I have already, on Clause 3, put down on the Order Paper an Amendment, which he asked to have considered when the Bill was in Committee, dealing with contracts made outside the jurisdiction. I am also quite willing, if it be desired, to leave to a free vote of the House the question of whether a pre-release should be confined to the Administrative County of London. On that matter we had a good deal of discussion, and some Scottish Members expressed anxiety. It is a matter about .which there may be feeling one way or another. It is a very practical point, and I am perfectly prepared to have a discussion on it, and that it should be left to a free vote. With regard to the period in Clause 2, the desire of the exhibitors is that the period should be as short as possible, but there is an Amendment on the Order Paper to extend the intermediate period to two years.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is not good enough.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should have thought that in practical life to get a reasonable compromise was better than getting nothing.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is not a reasonable one.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: At any rate, it seems to me not unreasonable to extend the intermediate period to two years, and I shall be prepared to accept it. There is another Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, or one of his friends, dealing with the penalty Clause, and reducing the amount of penalty from £100. I have gone through the Bill carefully, and I think it would be more consistent with Clause 23 and other provisions of the Bill if the maximum penalty were reduced to £50, and I should be quite prepared to accept that. [An HON. MEMBER: "£20."] If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends are reasonable about other things, they will find me reasonable in the matter of the penalty. There is already an Amendment, I see, in the name of the hon. Member for Central Southwark, in page 3, line 13,
for the postponement till April, which I shall certainly be prepared to accept. I think also he wants six weeks after the provisional notice, in page 4, line 24. I believe that Amendment is reasonable. There was another point which travels outside the immediate scope of Part I, but about which I think it is not unreasonable to give some explanation. There was a good deal of discussion in Committee as to what was a reasonable amount of variation to allow in the length of a film. I think the hon. Gentleman said you must not take a film and alter it entirely; otherwise you are dealing with a different article from that on the register. It was suggested that 5 per cent, was too small a margin of variation to allow, and I see there is an Amendment to increase the margin to 10 per cent. I think 10 per cent, is reasonable, and I shall certainly be prepared to accept an Amendment increasing the 5 per cent, allowance to 10 per cent.
What I have said shows that we have already gone a good long way to meet criticisms which have been directed to the details of the Bill. I am only too anxious to have a discussion of a businesslike character upon all the important points of the Bill, and I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that I did not show myself to be unreasonable in Committee. I was prepared either to agree to proposals or to justify my objection to them. But on the main question, that the whole of Part I should be deleted from the Bill, I must ask the House to reject that proposal.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Those who spent many weary weeks upstairs in Committee will welcome the rather changed attitude which the President of the Board of Trade has now indicated to the objections we have to make. He said that he thought he was not unreasonable in Committee, but I think hon. Members will agree that the amount of concessions granted us was very small indeed. Apparently, however, the right hon. Gentleman thinks he will have much more difficulty in getting his Bill through here unless he is a little more reasonable, and I must say I welcome the way in which he has replied this afternoon. But I am frankly disappointed that we have not got a more generous concession upon the main principle to leave out the first Part of the Bill altogether. It is per-
fectly true the Leader of the Opposition made a speech from which the President of the Board of Trade has quoted, and if we were dealing in this Bill with the general principle to be applied to all classes of trade in the country where, practices of this kind went on, then every hon. Member on this side would be supporting this class of legislation in Part I of the Bill. But Part I does nothing of the kind. It simply gives a certain amount of protection to one class of trade, which may possibly suffer from restraint of trade.
The right hon. Gentleman said, in reply to my right hon. and gallant Friend, that it was ridiculous to class a trade like the film industry with other industries, and that usually people who bought forward in other trades really knew exactly what they were going to buy, and did in fact buy on sample. That is quite untrue, and there is no one connected with the supply of the ordinary wants of the people who does not know that is untrue. What I am amazed at is the President making himself repsonsible for a Bill with a Part of this kind in it, when he has refused me, personally, again and again, to bring in a general Bill to deal with the restriction of trade operated by trusts and associations, although we have given him chapter and verse. In reply to what the President of the Board of Trade has said on this point, I would like to mention that I was a witness before the Royal Commission on Food Prices and questions were put to me in regard to tea. It was shown during that inquiry that the real trouble of Mincing Lane was not that certain people were buying large quantities of tea, but that a number of firms who joined together were buying tea overseas for as much as one, two, and even four seasons ahead. Those people did not know what kind of samples they were going to get and they had no knowledge of that kind.
The same argument applies in the case of books. It would apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for India when they are going to launch upon the world some new book for which they are responsible. What possible difference is there in principle between buying blindly ahead what the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for India may want to publish 1 I think the answer which the
right hon. Gentleman gave to the speech of the Mover of this Amendment was particularly weak. It has been said that the President has tried to meet our points, but he has not met us with regard to the restriction of time upon blind bookings. Even if we have conceded to us the point that the period of the quota should be confined to 12 years, what we are certain of is that the departmental expenses will go on just the same.
I am not at all clear how you are going to keep down the expenses of the new Department. If you are going to trace crime, you will require an effective machine at the Board of Trade for which you must be prepared to pay the price. If, on the other hand, the President does not propose to have effective machinery, it will not be possible to work effectively this part of the Bill. We have been told that the people in this country usually obey Acts of Parliament when they are passed, and more particularly people in business. I do not think that is true. Let me give a particular case. If hon. Members would examine the files of the Law Courts relating to prosecutions under the Companies Acts, they would see whether people do really obey the law. Why did the President of the Board of Trade find it necessary to introduce a wide amending Bill to the Companies Acts 1 It was because he found, after passing a series of Acts dealing with companies, that there still remained many evasions that he had to keep on screwing up the Regulations. I think that is an answer to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad we are going to be met in regard to the question of pre-release. We have had very strong representations made to us on this question from various parts of the country, and we shall accept what has been proposed in this respect with a certain amount of gratitude, although we might have saved the President much time and labour if he had been prepared to give this concession to us some months ago.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I said that I would leave that question to a free vote of the House.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Then I am mistaken, and really the right hon. Gentleman has not committed himself on this point, I am glad to have the minor
concession that the question will be left to a free vote of the House. If the President of the Board of Trade is not prepared to withdraw this part of the Bill, he must not expect us to refrain from criticising in more detail than would otherwise have been necessary some of the other parts of the Bill. We must take the Bill as a whole. At the same time, I welcome the indication which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman of a more reasonable spirit than that which was shown in Committee. Probably our attitude towards the later stages of this Bill will be largely governed by the sweet reasonableness of the spirit displayed by the right hon. Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am rather pleased with the attitude taken up by the President of the Board of Trade in the first few minutes of the consideration of the Report stage of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seems inclined to meet us in one or two small particulars, and that is very hopeful. We hope to induce him to give us some further concessions later on. I will not go over the ground which has been covered by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) or the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) in reference to what the President said about the Leader of the Opposition and myself. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Leader of the Opposition had thrown a cloak of respectability over that portion of the Bill dealing with blind and block booking
The President also accused me of having in the past asked for legislation on these two aspects of the cinematograph business. It is perfectly true that in the past I, as well as the Leader of the Opposition, fathered this proposal to deal with blind booking, hut at that time it was entirely dependent upon the quota. If you are going to deal simply with the question of blind booking, there is a great deal to be said for it, but since this question has been reduced to an Act of Parliament, the objections are very great indeed. If you are going to deal with blind and block booking, there is a good deal that can be said in favour of the proposal. What I object to, and what the Leader of the Opposition has raised an ojection to, is the way in which
it is being dealt with in connection with other parts of the Bill, particularly in connection with the quota If you are going to enforce a certain percentage of British films, you must leave them free to deal with the rest of their business. It is too much to enforce the agreed quota, and also restrict ordinary trade practices in regard to booking forward and so-called blind booking.
The President of the Board of Trade has dealt rather widely with this matter. I admit having approached him previously on the question of the production of British films, and I still think it very important that we should export British films to be shown in other parts of the Empire. I have not a word to withdraw on that point. I think the Bill as a whole is very doubtful in regard to the effect it will have in that direction. I am not sure that this Bill will secure the exhibition of a six-reel film produced by British capital in any of our Dominions. I am not sure that this Measure will accomplish anything in that direction, and that is the only real test. It is not so much what is shown in this country that matters, but what is shown abroad. I do want to see good and excellent British films shown abroad, especially in the Dominions, and in fact all over the world, for publicity reasons, and even for the reason put forward by the Federation of British Industries, although I do not always approve of their methods. I do not think we are going the right way about this question, and my view is that this Bill as a whole is going to put a premium on inefficiency.
The proposals in regard to this Bill were entirely different when they were put forward in writing and published. What I suggested in the first place was that trade facilities credits should be granted, and that cheap credits should be provided in order to assist this industry. What I pointed out in my speeches was that we had a tremendous lot of leeway to make up. The film industry has been largely developed by only three countries. In the early days, America had a great advantage in the shape of a good climate for production, and unlimited capital, and, above all, they had a number of business men who were prepared to give financial support to their schemes. Owing to the War, Germany had to produce her own films, and the German film industry has been
in a very flourishing condition for some time. The third country which has been successful in regard to film production is Russia, where the Government have been able to restrict all enterprise except that of the Russian Government companies.
I wish to know whether we are going to catch up the immense loss of the last few years? Are we going to force our way into the overseas market in regard to British films if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament? When that test is applied to this Bill I think it fails. I object to interfering in this way with a very important industry which is at the present moment flourishing in this country. It is unfair to interfere in the way which is now proposed with that large body of business men who now form our amusement caterers.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have allowed a rather wide range in this discussion, but it was not intended to> cover the whole question of the quota. I think the question of blind booking can be treated separately from the quota.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg pardon, but I was rather tempted to stray from the Amendment. With regard to blind booking, the President of the Board of Trade has said that the film industry differs in this matter from every other industry. I venture to say that there are some very similar industries in which blind booking is the present rule. The painting of portraits has been referred to. May I ask if the President of the Board of Trade has had his portrait painted for the benefit of posterity, and did he pay anything, or agree to pay anything, until he had seen it and approved of it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. As I pointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in those cases there is a willing buyer, but here the unfortunate buyer is having the thing thrust upon him.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am told that that is exactly what is not happening, but that these exhibitors ask to book the productions of a certain company on its past performances, featuring, as it is called, certain film actors on their past performances; and I am also told that it would be very difficult to carry on the business without that. I will
take another case. Has the President of the Board of Trade yet given to the world a book—say a work on philosophy? I understand he has not. Very well; I will tell him that I have an advantage over him there, and I find that, in the business of writing books, not only is the book commissioned in advance, if you are supposed to be capable of writing a suitable book, but you are actually offered hard cash on the signing of the contract; and, so far from the book having been seen before that is done, it is done before one line of it is put on paper. That very commonly happens.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman? I should be glad to buy a book in such circumstances if I knew that it was to be written by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I would not buy a book under a contract which involved taking books from other members of the Labour party.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Exactly; that drives in my point. What happens is this. Suppose that the hon. Gentleman occupies a cinematograph theatre, and that I, a renter, go to him and say, "I have a very successful Cabinet film picturing the President of the Board of Trade"—I am not quite certain if that is right, but, anyhow, the Home Secretary; or suppose I say, " You know that film in which Valentino takes part which we are producing next year " —Valentino is dead, but the film might be one that was made in the past and had not been released; or suppose I say, " We are producing some films within the next two years in which Mr. Chaplin or Mr. Fairbanks will be featured; will you, knowing the performances of Mr. Chaplin and Mr. Fairbanks on the screen, take these films when they are produced?" The hon. Gentleman, who knows that his patrons like Mr. Fairbanks or Mr. Chaplin, will say, "Yes, of course I will." It is the same as when, knowing what I can write, he says, as he has just said, he would take a book written by me. But if I go to him with films showing absolutely unknown artists of whom nobody has ever heard, he will not take them. That is exactly what has happened in the film industry, or so I am informed.
Blind booking is only conducted by firms who produce good films and have a good reputation, or, in the case of films that feature, as it is called, well-known actors and actresses, and I do not think the case is any different from that of the novel or of journalism or anything else. I have written thousands and thousands of words for newspapers on matters of public interest which the newspapers have agreed to publish—and I should have been very annoyed if they had not published them—without knowing one word of what I was going to write beyond a very broad outline of the subject. That is a case of blind booking. Indeed, newspapers could not be produced otherwise, except merely with their news; they could not have articles on matters of general interest unless they did that. No newspaper, magazine or periodical in the country could do that unless blind booking was possible. They have to go to certain people who can write on certain subjects, and say, "We want an article or contribution on such-and-such a subject; will you write it for us?" That is the only way in which they can do it, and that is blind booking; it is very similar to what happens in the case of films.
I confess that at first sight it seems possible to make out a strong case for restrictions on blind booking, but, on a full examination of the matter, and knowing the opposition from very important bodies of exhibitors, who have a very great deal of capital invested in picture theatres up and down the country, and who know their own business best— in view of that opposition, combined with the quota, I consider that this part of the Bill goes much too far. May I say that the fact that I have crossed the Gangway has made no difference to my views on the matter at all? The person who has changed my views is the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, with his ridiculous quota system. Whenever I have advocated certain measures, which I do not want to touch upon here, for helping British films, I have always recommended the avoidance of two things—the restriction due to a quota, and a tariff. Neither will do any good, and when, on the top of that, it is proposed to restrict the ordinary trade practices of the industry, I say that all that is being done
is to threaten with grave injury a perfectly worthy body of men who know their own business, who have immense interests at stake and immense capital invested. That is not fair at all, and I think, therefore, that we are perfectly justified in voting against this portion of the Bill.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I am a little amazed by the speech we have just heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). What does it amount to 1 It amounts to saying, "Leave everything alone." The Bill was brought in because of the existence of circumstances of an evil nature. If the hon. and gallant Member does not like the provisions of the Bill, if he does not like the abolition of blind booking and block booking and the scheme of the quota, which I regard as essential, if he believes that the abolition of blind and block booking will not produce the necessary results, why does he not put in front of us something constructive?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It would not be in order for me to put forward my proposal now, but I said I wanted cheap credit given to the producing companies. That was my constructive suggestion, and it will have to be done if anything is to be accomplished.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Again I am amazed, because there seems to be no difficulty in getting cheap credit. The cheapest credit that any firm can get is in the form of subscriptions to ordinary shares, on which there is no obligation to pay any dividend unless a profit is made. That is the cheapest form of credit I have ever heard of. The other day I noticed in the papers that a film company was being floated, called, I think, Whitehall Films, and I was told that the issue was oversubscribed 11 times in about five minutes.

Colonel DAY: On the strength of this Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: On the strength of this Bill. Therefore, as a result of the introduction of this Bill, we have the cheapest possible form of credit, namely, a willing subscription to ordinary shares without any Government guarantee behind it at all. [Interruption.] There is no promise of any kind that is of financial value behind a prospectus; there is
merely an expectation, which is based upon the faith that people may have in the directors and in the scheme they outline. I do not think the hon. and gallant Member's analogy of the newspapers is a very impressive one. He tells us that newspaper proprietors are prepared blindly to trust him to write, and they will publish what he writes. I am not going to criticise what the hon. and gallant Member writes; I have always read it with interest; but presumably what he says is true of the distinguished people who write every Sunday in the papers that we all of us read in our spare moments. I have always wondered why there was so much more undiluted rubbish published on a Sunday than on any other day of the week; I understand it is due to the fact that this blind booking system exists in regard to newspapers. Personally, I wish it applied to what I write, but they always want to see what I write, and then they reject most of it.
In all seriousness, we have, or have had, our theatres blocked with American films, and there has been no chance for the British producer. In some way or other we have to make it possible for British films to get into British theatres, and we can only do that if we relieve the situation which has existed in the past, and prevent it from occurring in the future—the situation which the American monopolists have forced upon us. They have been in the position of being able to supply super-films, the outstanding feature films which the- theatres want, and, before they will let people have those, they insist on their taking blindly a great deal of other stuff which may or may not be rubbish. The public suffer as much as anyone else, because the standard of display in the theatres is far lower than it need be as the result of this iniquitous system which the Bill is designed to stop. I was surprised to hear what was said by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), to the effect that he wanted blind booking to be permissible in the case of British films. We have seen the evil of the American monopoly, and I am just as anxious that we shall not build up in this country a British monopoly. Therefore, I want the restrictions which would apply to American films to apply equally to British films. I have read in the
papers of the evils from which they suffer in America, and the President of the Board of Trade drew attention this afternoon to the way in which the American public are complaining about the same thing of which we are complaining, owing to the film monopoly which this Bill is designed to break; and I am perfectly satisfied that, until the way has been cleared by doing away with blind and block booking, there is no hope- Already we see, as the result of the promise of this Bill, an amazing revival in the production of British films, and it would be a shame now if, after so much progress has been made, we were to abandon Part I of the Bill.

Mr. KELLY: One would imagine, after hearing the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), that the proposed registration and restrictions in regard to block booking and blind booking were going to save the public from seeing those pictures which the hon. Member deplores; but there is nothing in this Bill that is going to enforce the making of better pictures than are made at this moment. There is nothing that will enable the President of the Board of Trade or his Department to refuse to register any film which the proprietor or producer names to them at any time, provided he pays the registration fee. I think that all this talk about blind booking, of which we heard so much during the Committee stage, is beside the question. The people who complained that they were compelled to take certain American pictures which they disliked were not placing some of those on the screen; if they did, the public would not suffer long, because they would absent themselves from the cinema theatres where such pictures were displayed. Like others on these benches, I must express my thankfulness for the reasonable spirit shown by the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon. I think that anyone looking at the proceedings during the Committee stage of this Bill, and realising the number of times that the right hon. Gentleman moved the Closure, would see the unreasonableness that operated during the Committee stage. The suggestions, however, now made to us by the right hon. Gentleman, that he is prepared to accept certain modifications in this Measure, do not
make it any the more acceptable. It is. still the same Bill, which compels registration, which prevents people from engaging in the business that they have been conducting for some time, and prevents them from arranging to purchase a film which they thoroughly understand although it has not been placed upon the screen.
5.0 p.m.
I submit that it is possible for people to buy a film, to arrange for the production and exhibition of a film, before ever the film has been produced. The Parliamentary Secretary in his own business would demand to see the plans of a ship he was going to buy, and the exhibitor arranges with the producer the plans for the pictures that he is prepared to buy. But this Bill says you must not enter into any bargain, you must not, even though you have a good idea as to what will suit the public, go forward with it, but you must only engage a picture when it has been shown at some trade show. That is such a restriction upon industry that I am amazed at the Government coming forward with it. I am pleased that the President of the Board of Trade has realised that London is not the centre of the universe, and is not even the centre of this country. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member suggested a. place which might more fittingly than London be described as the centre of the universe. I refrain from mentioning it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I must not be taken as accepting that reflection upon Yorkshire.

Mr. KELLY: It is the other rose the hon. Member is referring to, the county of the red rose and not the white rose. I hope we shall delete the restriction that London is the only place where a trade show may take place, and that every exhibitor from North, South, East or West must come to London to attend it before he can enter into a business bargain to show the film in his own theatre. I also express some pleasure that this crime of purchasing pictures is now having some effect upon the Board of Trade, and it is good to find that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to halve the penalty from £100 to £50. But why have any penalty at all? If a proprietor or his representative purchases a film not in the way the right hon. Gentleman feels it ought to be done, they can be hauled
before the Courts and fined up to the amount of £50, the new amount the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I hope that penalty can be deleted. With regard to existing agreements, surely the right hon. Gentleman realises what he is doing by Clause 4. To say that existing agreements entered into in good faith, agreements which are not a crime against this country, agreements which enable pictures to be shown, can be wiped out immediately this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament is something that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman's followers have not appreciated. If it is good for a Conservative Government to wipe out agreements which are legally and morally good, that will be remembered when we are dealing with other sides of the life of the country. I hope the House will vote against Part I and get rid of something that is to the disadvantage of the cinema industry.

Colonel DAY: I have listened with very great interest to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) giving us an explanation how English capital could be found so easily for the production of British films. Last week I received a letter from one of the most prominent men in the cinema industry, a man who had more to do with its establishment on a sound basis in this country than anyone else. It is dated 24th October, 1927:
I am sending you the enclosed letter with prospectus which I have received from…… on behalf of……Films, Limited, from which you will see how the Government's quota scheme is being employed to raise capital. This I consider a desecration of all business morality. Needless to say, I have declined the chairmanship offered me.
That was a very well-known firm of accountants who have floated lately a company for £200,000 and asked this gentleman to accept the chairmanship, or deputy-chairmanship. The prospectus, which I have read1 very carefully, is extremely interesting, as all they have to offer the public is the hope that, through the Government's quota scheme, the production of British films will mean very large dividends for the subscribers. That, I am afraid, has been the general outline of the way money has been asked for from the public for the production of British films lately. There is no guarantee to the investing public in any
way that the films will be of any merit or will have any drawing power or that the poor investor will ever see any of his money back. There was a case, a few years ago, of a company with a capital of £500,000 formed for the production of British films which went into liquidation, although it had at its head some very eminent and experienced members of the profession who have been connected with the House. I am rather surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's remark that the overwhelming majority of the trade are in favour of the Bill. I have here a copy of the referendum that was sent them by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association of Great Britain and Ireland. It reads:
The following resolution was passed by a majority of 22 votes to 10 at the last meeting of the general council.
Resolved: That the report of the joint trade committee on British films be accepted by the general council.
It was further resolved that special meetings of the branches be called to consider the scheme, after which a referendum might have to be taken. You are therefore called upon to register your decision by placing a cross in one of the columns of the voting paper. No qualifications are admissible. If any are made the vote will be void for uncertainty. This paper will not be valid unless received on or before the first post on 30th November, 1925."
The voting was 679 against the committee's proposition and 609 in favour. That is the last referendum that was taken.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was talking about something quite different— blind booking. Those are the figures I quoted. The hon. Member is quoting something quite different.

Colonel DAY: The Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association have definitely informed Members of the House that there is no definition of block booking. I will give the House the definition presently. I am only now giving the figures of that portion of the trade that voted on the General Council's resolution, and that portion does not in any way cover the trade. The trade consists of at least 4,000 exhibitors. If we take that referendum as a census of opinion in the trade we should reject the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had had these figures before he introduced it, I think it would never have been introduced. The Cinematograph Exhibitors' Associa-
tion of Great Britain and Ireland is the association which has not only tried to inform Members of the House how the trade should be run, but, I believe, has been in very close touch with the right hon. Gentleman and his officials. I think they are more or less the inspirers of many of the Clauses of the Bill. They have issued what they call the meaning of trade terms. It says:
Block booking has never been defined. It has had different meanings in the trade at different times. Advance hooking and block booking are now synonymous terms.
There the association is trying to confuse the minds of Members by telling them that advance booking, which is blind booking, and block booking are the same. I contend that they are totally different. Blind booking means booking a film in advance which one has not seen and block booking is the booking of a block of films whether they have been produced or not.
In many ways in Committee the right lion. Gentleman met us very fairly, but on other occasions, rather than have any opposition put up from our benches, the Closure was moved ruthlessly, and there are many points in the Bill that we did not have an opportunity of debating. [Interruption.] I thank the right hon. Gentleman who has just made that remark, which I happened to overhear and which I will not repeat, because I really do not wish to give him any credit for discourtesy. I am sure that is the last thing he would desire and I do not think he actually meant it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I only said that I prefer the right to make a calculation as to how many hours the hon. Member spoke.

Colonel DAY: That might be a very interesting calculation, and might give much satisfaction to many Members on this side. I would ask the House to consider that the restriction on blind booking and advance booking of films is one which should never have been introduced into this Bill. Blind booking or advance booking, not only of films, but in regard to all matters connected with the entertainment industry, has been the backbone of the industry. One must realise that you must make advance arrangements for the purpose of carrying on such an
intricate business as the cinema, especially where there is so much competition in the different towns. I think it is quite generally known that in one very important town there are seven houses which run super plays or pictures. If you are going to impose this restriction you are going to make it almost impossible for some of those houses to carry on. Advance booking or blind booking, as far as my short experience of the entertainment industry goes, has been the mainstay of the business. Although I was very delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was agreeable to modify the penalties which are set out in Clause 3, personally, I think those penalties should not be there at all. We all know that if a licensee, an exhibitor who holds a licence, happens to be fined for using an unregistered film, the next time he comes before the licensing authority for the renewal of his licence it is almost certain that the licensing authority will not renew the licence. That would really amount to a further penalty upon the cinema exhibitor.
These instances have been gone into very carefully in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman knows them perfectly well, as they have been pointed out on so many occasions. We, on this side cannot see what benefits the registration Clause and the Clause which compels all people to register films can be to the trade. The only benefit it can be to anybody is to the Board of Trade, who will exact certain fees. Will those fees be sufficient to pay for the enormous staff that will be necessary to carry on that Department? Registration, of course, will mean a certain additional staff, and probably a greatly increased staff as time goes on. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question that I placed upon the Order Paper some considerable time ago, but that question referred particularly to cheap American films. It did not refer to the super films, or the big super films that we have at the present time from America. All who are connected with the exhibiting side of the cinema industry are well aware that if it were not for the super films that this country has had lately from America and from other parts of the world it would be impossible to carry on their business. When any British film has been produced that has any merit or drawing power the
exhibitors in this country have only been too glad immediately to book the film without any statutory obligation compelling them to do so. I "do not think there is any more loyal body of citizens than the exhibitors. They have loyally shown and have done so ever since 1914 every film of a patriotic nature. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some very bad ones, too!"] Some very bad ones, I agree. But what they do not want, is to be compelled to show films which are of no use. Unfortunately, if this Clause is passed, there will be a time when the exhibitors will have to show the very films that they have been fighting against for years.
I am glad to see that the President of the Board of Trade has decided to leave that portion of Sub-section 2 which refers to the trade shows in the county of London to a free vote of the House. I cannot conceive how such a Sub-section can have been put into the Bill. It is an insult to such districts as Manchester, Liverpool, Cardiff and Glasgow. It is an insult to districts which are really one of the mainstays of the- cinema industry as far as the exhibiting side goes. With regard to the trade show of those films, I am not aware whether the right hon. Gentleman has had his attention drawn to that case which governed trade shows for some time, Ellis versus the Northern Metropolitan Theatre, where pictures could only be trade-shown during the licensed hours of cinemas. That is a position which, in some cases, might be very difficult. As the right hon. Gentleman so kindly said that he would leave the question to a free vote of the House, may we go a little further and ask him to suggest to the representatives of the Government that they should use a little bit of influence, or explain thoroughly to the Members what they are voting upon when they come into the House. Because the mere fact of knowing that the Government are in one Lobby will be a sufficient inducement, although it is a free vote of the House, to those Members who have not heard the Debate, and have not heard the President's very generous remarks, to follow into the opposite Lobby to that which the Opposition are in. Perhaps, as the right hon. Gentleman has been so generous we may be able to persuade either him or his Under-Secretary to come into our Lobby and support us. Blind booking has been
one of the means by which the producers of films in this country have been able to finance the production of their films.
I suggest to the House that the restriction of advance booking and the insistence upon this registration Clause will hinder a trade, where, in the past, the producer has been able to arrange certain finance in respect of advance booking. You will be hampering the producer to such an extent that he will not be able to produce the same quantity of films that he has been able to produce in the past. We all know that some films cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. We heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Beading that a company has just been floated, I think he said, for £200,000. How ludicrous a sum that is when you are talking of producing super-films. We know of many super-films having been produced and shown in London during the past year, and that one of these films had cost half-a-million. I suggest that if the President of the Board of Trade could look back to last February and have his time over again, he would think twice before bringing in such a Bill as this.
There are many evils in connection with this Bill, and one of them is the evil of the bogus cinema schools. I have just mislaid the notification. [Interruption]. I intend to let you know the evils of the Bill. That is what we are on. this side of the House for. We are here for the purpose of letting the country know exactly what are the evils of the Bill that is being forced on the trade and on the public. I have here a notification which I will probably produce later when I have had a chance of going through my papers. It is a notification sent out by the Advertisers' Association warning people and warning newspapers of the prevalence of bogus cinema schools, promoters of which, since the introduction of this Bill, have tried by falsely worded advertisements to hold out great prospects to members of the public to become cinema stars and earn large salaries. I see the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall Caine) smiles, but it is a fact. It is within the recollection of the House that I have put down several questions to the Home Secretary on this great evil which has been in existence for the last few months.
This Bill, as it is at present framed, and Clause 1 in particular, ie destroying one of the assets, if I may say so, that the producers 'have had in the security of firm contracts which they have been able to make in advance with substantial firms, and by which they have been able to finance the big super films that they may have had in mind. If the object which the President of the Board of Trade has in view is to limit British productions, this Bill excellently serves the purpose. All that this Bill does is to encourage the inefficient producer. We are making it easier for him and making it more difficult, by the restriction of blind bookings, not only for the competent producer, but for the company which in the past have been able to produce satisfactory and excellent films, with the possibility of financing them through being able to secure advances on their future contracts. In addition, this Bill will seriously jeopardise freedom in negotiation as regards contracts. Legislative control of that principle is bad. We on this side of the House are particularly opposed to any form of restrictive proposals which will restrict freedom of contract.
There can be no doubt that the only people in the trade who want this Bill and who are the driving force in connection with it are the producing group of the F.B.I. They have been" the people in the fore all the way through. When there has been any announcement to be made in the Press of a modification of the quota, etc., they have been the first people to rush into print with it. As the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, when an alteration was made in certain Clauses of this Bill, although we were sitting in Committee at the time, the first intimation that we had in that Committee of that alteration was by reading in the " Times " a letter from representatives of the F.B.I, saying what the modifications were going to be.

Mr. THURTLE: What does the hon. Member mean by the F.B.I.?

Colonel DAY: The Federation of British Industries. Even before the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of telling the Committee that he had agreed to certain modifications, or that he was going to agree to those modi-
fications, the first intimation we had of them, although we had been sitting for many days in Committee, was a letter in the newspaper from one of the representatives of the F.B.I., stating what the modifications were to be. Considering the enormous injustice that Part I of the Bill will create not only to the renters and the exhibitors, but also to the public, in restricting output, we on this side shall offer every objection that is possible to the Bill.

Mr. THURTLE: I would not have intervened had I not heard the extraordinary defence of blind booking by the President of the Board of Trade. I could hardly believe that he was serious in offering that defence to the House, because he likened the creation of cinema films to ordinary articles of commerce. He said that if there was blind booking prevailing in other branches of industry it was possible to get samples and to find out what the articles were going to be. In effect, he compared a film to a pound of sugar or a pound of tea, a Ford car or a sausage or some stereotyped article of commerce.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid that I must have been unintelligible to the hon. Member. My argument was exactly the opposite.

Mr. THURTLE: I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that his point was that we were trying to put forward analogies of other industries and that he said that in those cases it was possible always to find out by means of samples what kind of article would be delivered. The film industry must be looked upon as a creative industry; an industry in which the creative artist is at work, and you cannot judge it by ordinary standards. I would like to give an illustration or two. Take the case of an author. When an author goes to a publisher and says that he is prepared to write a book on such and such a subject, you cannot tie him down as to the exact way in which he is going to carry out his work. Suppose, for illustration, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) were to go to a publisher and offer to write a book on money as it affects party politics. I am sure the publisher would make a blind booking of that without insisting upon the details of the particular book. He
would make a booking with the prospective author without seeing a sample of the work, and would undertake to purchase it. If we were to pursue that line of argument we might have other amusing illustrations. There might be the possibility of some enterprising cinematograph producer deciding to produce a film on the work of the present Tory Government. I could imagine that that might be a very interesting subject, not only for its works of commission but its works of omission. If the cinematograph firm were to offer the exhibitors a film on such a subject, without even giving much in the way of detail, I should think the exhibitors would be quite ready to enter into contracts to buy that particular film.
I press the point that if a highly reputable cinematograph producing firm has in its mind a conception of a film only vaguely, without the details filled in, if it has a reputation for high class work, if it has at its command creative artists who are going to build up the film and people who are accustomed to writing scenarios—although I have not a very high opinion of their literary standard in most cases—and if they can show that they are capable of producing a work of such a character, it is perfectly legitimate for them to be able to book that film in advance and to go to the exhibitors any say: "This is what we propose to do. We cannot guarantee exactly what our artists will make of the job. We cannot fill in all the details, but this, broadly, is our proposal. That is what we hope to make of the film." With a proposition like that, I submit that the exhibitors ought to be able to book such a film in advance. It is an intolerable interference with the ordinary rights of commerce and industry that that kind of thing should be prevented. This Government has made many blunders in connection with commerce and the agricultural industry and it seems to me to be about the last straw that it should come along now and with a proposal of this kind reduce the creative artist in the film industry to the level of the sausage manufacturer.

Mr. BECKETT: I want to ask hon. Members opposite if they have really considered before they decide to pass this Bill into law exactly to what level they are reducing the status of the House of Commons. If anyone reads carefully the
Clauses of the Bill which are now being discussed it is absolutely impossible, however impartial one keeps one's mind, not to feel the suspicion that there is an extraordinarily big financial flavour to-the whole of this transaction, when one finds the President of the Board of Trade,, amidst the breathless watching of his influential supporters, succeeding in steering this Bill by the skin of his teeth through Standing Committee, when we find all the gentlemen who write in the more reputable organs of the Press advising us how to invest our capital and when we find in every paper carrying any financial status all sorts of big puffs, speculations and advertisements as to what is going to be done once the President of the Board of Trade has done his job and this Bill, which interferes with public amusements, has been foisted upon the people of this country.
One big advertisement appeared the other day, in which it was obvious that the promoters had spent a very large amount of money, of a new company to be floated known as the Whitehall Films Company. Amongst the names advertised were prominent Conservative supporters and even the names of certain Members-of Parliament. That is the second great film company which has been advertised in the Press since this Bill was introduced in respect of which we have seen puffs, stating that Members of this House were vitally interested in the welfare of the company. It seems to me a most extraordinary thing that this House should pass a Bill interfering with legitimate business in a way which has never been done before and bringing in all kinds of restrictions in connection with a particularly useful class of tradesman who-not only caters for public amusement but also provides very handsome revenue towards the profligate expenditure of the present Government. Here we have a trade serving a useful purpose catering well for the public, paying large sums into the public exchequer, being chosen out of the trades of the country for a most drastic infringement of that right of free play and competitive enterprise about which hon. Members opposite bore whatever audiences they can find in the country, and no sooner do we see the Government saying to this trade "You are not to run your business your own way," than we find Members of Parliament heavily interested in new companies
advertised in the Press which are going to benefit as a result of a most improper interference with perfectly legitimate business.
There has been a tremendous attempt, although some newspapers supporting the party opposite have fairly exposed it in the country, to prejudice the public mind against blind booking. When the organs in the Press which support the party opposite so faithfully suddenly raise their hands in horror and say of blind booking in the cinema industry, "Here is an evil that we will kill; here is a terrible thing existing that we will stop," we on this side, from bitter experience, have learned to know where the dividends are coming from which suddenly inspire them to arouse prejudice in order to kill that so-called evil. If the Government want to do something for British trade and for the cinema industry, if they want to restrict evils, they could attack other evils than that of blind or advance booking, but in attacking those evils the Whitehall Company and its Conservative directors and supporters might not make a profit out of killing those evils. Therefore, we are in the habit, whenever we see hon. Members opposite raising their hands in horror and declaring their intentions to abolish it, of looking to see where their dividends are coming from next year. There is no doubt whatever that after you have imposed these restrictions upon a growing and useful trade, useful to the public .and to the Exchequer, you are going to get nothing out of it so far as British films and British trade are concerned. All you are going to do is to further enrich a few British trusts and a few British speculators. I know I should be out of order in dealing with anything but Part I of this Bill at the moment, but if the Bill is taken as a whole the arguments I am putting forward hold good for the rest of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle) has dealt with the absurdity of the attack upon blind bookings. It is such a ridiculous case that the House cannot be reminded too often of the flimsy pretext upon which hon. Members opposite are proposing in the Lobby to support the interest of these new speculators in the film industry of this country. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, of he can,
of any trade in this country in which the Government deliberately steps in and says, as a Parliament and a Government, that it is against the law to buy goods in advance whether they desire to or not. When serving on the Committee upstairs I made it my business to interview a considerable number of cinematograph exhibitors, and I did not find one who upheld the view that under the present system he had been obliged to give his public inadequate entertainments because he had to book whatever was given him. In the case of great artists, leading music hall artists, for instance, they are booked up for years to come. Sir Harry Lauder may be booked 10 years ahead. The people do not know what he is going to sing. He may be unlucky and not able to give as good songs as usual. He may have to give second-rate songs, but Parliament does not say to the managers of the Victoria Palace, or to any of the caterers of music hall entertainments, "Oh, but Sir Harry Lauder may rob you in 10 years' time by singing a bad song, therefore we will pass an Act of Parliament forbidding you to book him." Why does not Parliament interfere in a case like that. Everybody knows that Parliament is not concerned, and no Federation of British Industries is concerned as to whether Sir Harry Lauder, who gets a contract, sings a good song or a bad song.
Take the case of the iron and steel industries, or the coal industry; they have to buy goods which they think they will need a year ahead, and Parliament does not object. There is no large industry in this country which could be carried on without a considerable amount of forward buying and booking, and the only safeguard they have that the goods will be up to specification is the safeguard of their own shrewdness when buying and their knowledge of the products of the people with whom they do business. It is a most extraordinary thing to say that in this one industry, in this new speculative business, financed by prominent Conservatives, must the purchasers be prevented from buying in advance, must be prevented from entering into agreements in advance, in case they have no money left in order to buy the goods which the new companies of hon. Members opposite are going to produce in the near future. The whole
position is a definite disgrace to the House of Commons. Then I come to Clause 3 in Part I, which, in my opinion, adds malice to the suspicion with which we regard this part of the Bill. Not only are people forbidden to buy goods whether they desire to or not, or enter into agreements whether they desire to or not, but in addition these agreements are to he unenforceable in law. Then, so anxious are we to look after the Whitehall Film Company and its friends, we say that if anyone does spend money in advance they must spend it with us, or if not we will put them to severe legal expenses and fine them £100. That is bad in itself, but it is much worse than that. Any hon. Member on the Committee upstairs, except the hon. Member for Southwark Central (Colonel Day), when he spoke on any Amendment was told that he knew nothing about the industry and had no interest in the industry, and to the hon. Member for Southwark they said "You should not speak about it because you are in the industry." Every hon. Member opposite, in Committee, was careful to tell us that he was personally interested in the matter. I should have thought it was perfectly proper to speak if you had no interest in the matter and rather improper to speak in favour of this Bill if you had any interest in the industry.
There is a more serious danger still than that. Hon. Members opposite who have no personal interest of any kind whatever in this Bill say that they are not supporting the Measure because they want to make a little speculative profit, but because they want to do something valid and legitimate to assist the British film industry which has been under such a dark cloud during the past few years. I put it to these hon. Members, who have no interest at all in this Bill, that they cannot stimulate the British film industry by putting too much on the shoulders of a young and growing industry at once. If you are going to stop advance bookings and blind bookings, and penalise people, if you are going to make agreements not enforceable in law, the result is that British exhibitors will not be able to get their supply of first-class foreign films which they are allowed under the Bill. America is not dependent on British exhibitors for the profits she is making at the moment. England gets the films
after they have paid for themselves several times over in America. Every year the super-film from America, which is the film we want, has a wider market to which to appeal, and if you are going: to put on all kinds of absurd restrictions they will take their super-films to another market, where they can make decent terms and where their agreements are not liable to the most grandmotherly kind of State interference. You are going to make it much more difficult for people here to obtain the best films, and the result will be that you will sicken the British public with deplorably padded programmes of hysterical, badly-produced and hastily rushed through British films.
I have another quarrel with this Bill. It is always the same when the Government starts protecting one section of the people in the interests of that section. Although you are giving the British producers a clear run you are doing nothing to protect the British exhibitor against exorbitant rents and bad films. I have been to a large number of cinema performances and have seen many films from many different countries, and, apart from the absolutely low class American pictures, which no respectable picture house is exhibiting now, the most deplorable films I have seen for tawdry tale and bad photography are the British films, which are rushed through in a hurry in order to meet an artificially created market. It does not take long to explain why. If the British film industry is to make good and cut out the American propaganda, if it is to make good British propaganda, such as good Conservatives want, you will have to bring up your industry slowly; not give them the inducement of producing dud films but make them fight on their merits with other countries in order to produce the kind of film that will succeed. I do not share in the exuberance of the two minutes of 11th November Imperialism of some people, but the one thing that infuriates me is to see shown all over the world films boosting one particular nation and very often showing our own nation in a worse light than I think it should be shown. You are not going to cure that by this Bill; you are going to make it worse. You are going to give this new speculative British company an absolutely safe and certain market where it can take its goods at any price, however bad they are.
Hon. Members opposite, who know so much about the virtues of private enterprise, much more than I have ever been able to discover, always tell us that the one thing which make private enterprise efficient is the fact that it has to compete in an open market. I do not think it is .a very strong argument, but they cannot use it again if they vote for this Bill. In this Bill they have said, " It may be true, as we have said on every platform, that competition is the saving grace of private enterprise, but as we are concerned with a speculative rush into the British film industry we do not want to expose it to competition, we want to make it as difficult as possible for even the most legitimate competition, because when we get no competition we shall produce cheap junk stuff. We can have cheap artists, cheap camera men, and cheap producers, and we can rush things through without adequate rehearsal."
6.0 p.m.
Everyone knows that for every 500 feet of film that are shot it is not at all unusual for 300 or 400 feet to be cut away before the film is shown to the public. That is the great difference between a really good film giving a decent story with decent artists, and a bad film. In the good film the producer has had the money and the time to get his story together carefully, to shoot it in all kinds of differing circumstances, and to piece it together, cutting out what is bad, and to re-act what is not good enough, and so with an adequate expenditure on photography and time and on shooting the film, he succeeds in presenting to the public not a bad film, not the thousands and thousands of feet of film that have been shot, but what he considers to be the quintescence, the best part of those thousands of feet. I suggest that if you are going to restrict blind booking and advance booking, you are not only going to cut foreign pictures out of the quota,

but you will make it impossible for us to get the best kind of foreign pictures anyway. It means that you are creating a larger artificial market for an industry which its most optimistic friends will not declare to be thoroughly on its feet yet.

I agree whole-heartedly with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who say how important it is that the British film industry should be put on its feet, but the passing of these Clauses is not the way to put it on its feet. You are creating a large market for which the industry is not ready. There are to be no restrictions, no censorship, no directions to the exhibitor. You will not assist the British industry to get on its feet and to produce pictures that will be a credit and good propaganda abroad for the British nation, but you will provide a market where British producers can sell any junk they like at any price they care to charge. The exhibitors will have to buy whatever they are given. You are creating "a tender plant," a protected industry. Look at the names on the prospectuses of the new British companies. I see the names of several prominent Conservative Members of this House. Apart from those, it is like reading a list of members of the Moscow Soviet. These people are not the people who, when they can sell bad stuff dearly, will produce and sell good stuff cheaply. If you do not produce good pictures cheaply, you will not capture the world market, and you will not have good British films to send abroad to bring trade to this country or credit and understanding of the British people. Those objects will never be attained by the fostering of speculative companies.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word ' agreement ' in page 1, line 10, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 105.

Division No. 324.]
AYES.
[6.6 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Briggs, J. Harold


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bennett, A. J.
Briscoe, Richard George


Albery, Irving James
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Berry, Sir George
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool.W. Derby)
Bethel, A.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Betterton, Henry B.
Buchan, John


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Sklpton)
Buckingham, Sir H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Bullock, Captain M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Butt. Sir Alfred


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hartington, Marquess of
Price, Major C. W. M.


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ramsden, E.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Headlam, Lleut.-Colonel C. M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cayzer, MaJ. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Henderson, Lt.-Coi. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ropner, Major L.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hilton, Cecil
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rye, F. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandon, Lord


Clayton, G. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Huntingfield, Lord
Savery, S. S.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton, A. N.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cope, Major William
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne,C.)


Couper, J. B.
James, Lleut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Smithers, Waldron


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Klndersley, Major Guy M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lane Fox, Col Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davies, MaJ. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovll)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Loder, J. de V
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Long, Major Eric
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Drewe, C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacIntyre, Ian
Tinne, J. A.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean, Major A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Ford, Sir P. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fraser, Captain Ian
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Meller, R. J.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Ganzonl, Sir John
Merriman, F. B.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Williams, Herbert G. (Rending)


Gates, Percy
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Goff, Sir Park
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gower, Sir Robert
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Withers, John James


Grace, John
Moreing Captain A. H.
Wolmer, Viscount


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Womersley, W. J.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Oakley, T.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Grotrian, H. Brent.
Penny, Frederick George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pilcher, G.



Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pilditch, Sir Philip
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Harrison, G. J. C.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Major Sir George Hennessy and Capt. Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cluse, W. S.
Groves, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cove, W. G.
Grundy, T. W.


Baker, Walter
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dennison, R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)


Barnes, A.
Duncan, C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Batey, Joseph
Dunnico, H.
Hardle, George D.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Forrest, W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon, Vernon


Bondfield, Margaret
Gardner, J. P.
Hayday. Arthur


Broad, F. A.
Gibbins, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bromfield, William
Gillett, George M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Bromley, J.
Greenall, T.
Hirst, G. H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)




Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Potts, John S.
Townend, A. E.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Riley, Ben
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Viant, S. P.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rose, Frank H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)-


Kennedy, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Kirkwood, D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wellock, Wilfred


Lansbury, George
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Westwood, J.


Lawrence, Susan
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Whiteley, w.


Lawson, John James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Livingstone, A. M.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Lowth, T.
Snell, Harry
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Lunn, William
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Maxton, James
Stamford, T. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Montague, Frederick
Stephen, Campbell
Wright, W.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sutton, J. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Naylor, T. E.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)



Oliver, George Harold
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Owen, Major G.
Thurtle, Ernest
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Restrictions on blind booking of films.)

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment I select is that in the name of the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. Stephen).

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out the words " being a theatre in the administrative county of London."
If the President of the Board of Trade were to accept the Amendment, the Subsection as amended would read:
In the case of a film which has not (been previously exhibited to exhibitors or to the public in Great Britain, this section shall not operate so as to prohibit the making prior to the registration or application for registration thereof of an agreement for the exhibition of the film in one theatre only on a number of consecutive days if at the time of the making of the agreement a copy of the film is in physical existence in Great Britain, or if the film is, or when made will be. a British film.
There was a great deal of feeling in the Committee on this question of trade shows being confined to the county area of London. There are cinema centres for various districts throughout the country, and in Glasgow, for example, with regard to the Scottish houses, we hold that the imposition of this qualification might have an adverse effect upon Scottish interests. In Glasgow, I am told, there are seven houses of the class described as "first run houses," which shows that the interests of Glasgow alone ought to be more fully considered. There are certain cases in which a trade show in London may be quite suitable for some provincial interests, but the President of the Board of Trade and Members of this House must take account of the fact that
if this Bill becomes law they expect a very big development in the production of British films. If that development is to take place, it is all the more imperative that there should be opportunities in every district for the holding of trade shows.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to accept this Amendment and that he realises the importance of trying to make this legislation a little more flexible than it will be should this restriction be retained. It is possible that the custom of the trade in the past has been to hold these shows in London, and that the custom has created a tendency towards confining them to the London area, but if there is to be a big development of the industry in the future, obviously each provincial district should have the opportunity—if the people responsible so desire—of having a trade show. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit it to be a reasonable suggestion that, if this legislation is going to be effective, an attempt should be made not to centralise all the trade shows in the London area, but to give each of these districts a certain amount of autonomy in the development of the industry. I do not wish to delay the House, but I think the Amendment on the Paper is a reasonable one, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not definitely accept it, I hope he will leave it to a free vote of the House.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I beg to second the Amendment.
The retention of these words will not strengthen the Bill at all and their omission will not damage the Bill. The principle of the Bill is not affected by them
in any way. When the subject was discussed in Committee the only point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that the holding of these shows in London was a trade custom. I presume that the trade have been carrying out this custom quite properly and satisfactorily themselves without any Act of Parliament compelling them to do so; and if it is for the convenience of the trade that they should continue to hold trade shows in the West End of London, the deletion of these words will not prevent them doing so. On the other hand, in a rapidly changing industry of this kind, a time may come when it will be for the convenience of the trade to have trade shows in Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool or other provincial centres, and by the inclusion of these words you may unnecessarily restrict them in that respect. As I think the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to take up a reasonable attitude on this question I am not going to argue the point as to whether it should be the London County Council area or the Metropolitan Police area. I drop that point entirely and I confine myself to the one point that as this has been a trade custom in the past we shall not achieve anything useful by making it compulsory under an Act of Parliament, and if it is for the convenience of the trade to continue these shows in the West End, they can continue to do so.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The case for the Amendment has been put very concisely and clearly. The Mover and Seconder are quite right in saying that all the present drafting of the Clause does is to stereotype the existing practice of the trade. It was for that reason that the exhibitors attached some importance to the retention of these words. But I think there is certain force in the argument that if it is the trade practice then it can be continued without legislation; whereas, if circumstances change, it might then be convenient to be able to alter the practice. At any rate, it is not a matter on which I am going to take up a pontifical attitude. I do not desire to decide as between Glasgow and London and I am perfectly willing to leave the matter to a free vote of the House.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How will the right hon. Gentleman inform his followers that he is leaving it to a free vote of the House?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have said so twice. I said so during the general Debate and I am repeating it now. I do not know whether anyone is going to oppose this Amendment, but, if it is opposed, it will be by private Members and the Tellers against it will be private Members.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I wish to associate myself with this Amendment. London is still the clearing house for a large number of industries and, in fact, for most of them, and, as has been pointed out, the holding of these shows in London is the practice in the cinema industry. I think it is desirable, however, that the trade should find its own centres for these purposes and that we ought not to cut out places like Glasgow and Manchester. I do not wish to press the case for Scotland, as it has been put forward already, but I feel that the present drafting of the Clause tends to prevent places in the provinces having pre-release shows, while on the other hand the Amendment will not prevent London from continuing in its present position in relation to the industry.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I desire to oppose the Amendment. It seems to me this is a case of local patriotism as opposed to common sense and probably common sense will lose because there are too many local patriotisms on the other side.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Which are you for?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am for common sense naturally. The reason why London has been suggested for this purpose is because London is the most convenient centre for the majority of those concerned. By making compulsory what has been the practice in the trade, we can make it impossible for people to evade these regulations or this Clause by having a trade show in an out-of-the-way, remote place for some purpose of their own. It might be desired for evasion purposes to hold a show in a place which would be inconvenient for the bulk of those who would ordinarily desire to witness such a show. To ensure that the people who desire to see these films should have the fullest and most convenient opportunity of doing so, I suggest that these words should be retained in the Clause.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The only objection I would urge against the argument of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) is that one must assume cinema proprietors to be business men. They will not exhibit their films in obscure places. They will exhibit them in centres where they can most easily attract large numbers of people who are likely to make bookings; and it would seem, therefore, that the common sense point of view has been missed by the hon. Member. I think the common sense attitude is to leave it to the people concerned, who will take good care to give their exhibitions in the places where they are likely to get most custom.

Mr. MAXTON: I am shocked at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) that any section of the business community in this country would attempt to evade the law.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out from the word " days," in line 12, to the word " if " in line 14.
The omission of these words will enable a super-film such as "Ben-Hur," to be booked up even before it has entered this country. As the Bill stands it would be impossible for an exhibitor to book a film if it was not " in physical existence " in Great Britain, even though he knew all about it and knew that it would satisfy, entertain and instruct the public. I do not know what possessed the Government to insert these words. I do not care to use the word "common sense" after the way in which it has been abused, but I ask the Government to take away this restriction on art and on the opportunities of showing our people films that are worth seeing. I think I have said enough to show the fallacy of retaining these words, and I ask for their deletion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.
If this Bill passes in its present form it will be impossible for the unfortunate theatre proprietors to book a film unless it is actually in this country. That means that we may have some wonderful film like "Metropolis," showing in Berlin, or like "Ben Hur," to which my hon. Friend referred, or one of those very magnificent American films, which
they know is a tremendous success in the States, and that they cannot book it until the film has actually arrived here. I think it is absurd, and whoever had these words put in must have had no actual knowledge of the way in which this business is conducted. If these words remain in, it will be impossible for these great super-films to be booked at all by very many theatre proprietors in this country. There is a tremendous demand for the few really magnificent films which are being produced in the world to-day—the supply of them is restricted—and these words restrict the actions of this business community in a way that this House would! never wish to do, if it were only aware of what is proposed. I am certain that if the Whips were taken off, these words would be expunged by a huge majority.

Sir B. CHADWICK: My right hon. Friend asks me to say that he will accept this Amendment, because, by so doing, it will strengthen the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Restrictions on advance booking.)

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) wish to move to leave out Clause 2?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out Clause 2.
I do not propose to take very long over it. What I propose is to ask the Government, seeing that they have already indicated that they are prepared to make a concession to the Opposition on this Clause, to prefer the Amendment which we have put on the Paper in a draft form this afternoon to the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams)—[in page 2, line 33,, to leave out the word " twenty-nine " and to insert instead thereof the word " thirty "]. Clause 2, as the House will readily see, is the Clause which stops what is called advance booking, but advance booking is quite a wrong name for the actual effect of this Clause. Advance booking, as a normal person would understand it, is prohibited in Clause 1; that is to say, no agreement to rent a film can be made before the film is actually in existence, registered and trade-shown. In Clause 2
they are dealing with another matter. After the film has been trade-shown and registered, the ordinary cinematograph exhibitor may hire that film for show within a certain period. He can book six months ahead; that is to say, he can hire the film from the renter when he has seen the goods, and show it in his picture palace, within six months of that date, but if it is more than six months, he cannot do it. The hon. Member for Reading desires to spread the period, so that for at least a couple of years the exhibitor will be able to buy, after he has seen the goods, for exhibition in his picture palace. That is an improvement. What we seek to do is to make the six months into nine months for all time, so that, at any rate, the cinematograph exhibitor should be able to buy it for exhibition in his cinema up to nine months from the date when he sees the film.
I hope the Government will accept that rather than the other Amendment, but what I want to find out is why they want this Clause in at all. Why stop a man who sees the goods from buying them for exhibition 1 I cannot conceive of any reason. The only reason that has been given to me is that the cinematograph exhibitors want this prohibition in. If any Member of this House can explain to me why cinema exhibitors, or, rather, their organisation, should want themselves to be stopped from buying goods to show more than six months ahead, I shall be very glad to hear the reason. As a matter of fact, a number of the cinema exhibitors have written, or spoken to me about this very point. It affects particularly the small houses and their owners. The big houses, when they are booking their films, naturally book for first cut at a film, but the small house only has the second run of the film, which naturally takes place at a far longer interval after the trade-show, so that the small man sees the film and then he has to wait and to think: " I cannot order it for three weeks or three months or six months. I could put it down on my list for a year ahead, but I cannot make sure of it for three months or six months' time "; and anybody can see that this is going to be a great inconvenience to the small cinema owner.
I do not see the advantage of it to any owner. What has been put to me—and I think there is something in it—is that
the owners say: "We sometimes pay by ante-dated cheque; we pay our account, sign the cheque, and put a date on it which will make that cheque negotiable only at a certain date. May we, under this Bill, order the film and post-date the order, so that by that time the necessary period has expired, and then we can get first cut at it" 1 It appears that a lot of these cinema exhibitors run after these films, that there is a great desire to be first in the field to book some of these films, and, if possible, they would like to know whether they could order from the renters of films, although they do not want them for more than six months after the trade-show, by an order which shall be so dated that they will not be breaking the law. I told them that I thought that would be illegal under this Clause, but I am not certain. It is just that sort of difficulty which no Government in their senses can really want to inflict upon a perfectly innocent trade. If the Government have not got any really strong arguments in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Heading, I wish they would accept ours and give us at least nine months, though I would naturally prefer that the whole Clause should go altogether.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps I might be permitted, before dealing with the merits of this Clause, to follow up what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said about the possibility of an arrangement. I think we can get a perfectly reasonable arrangement by which material matters in this Bill can be discussed without keeping us up until outrageous hours of the night or morning, and I appreciate that, if the Bill is to be. approached in that spirit, all reasonable accommodation on one side and the other should be given. Our discussion is interrupted on Wednesday by the Vote of Censure, but on the understanding that we should take this Bill again tomorrow, that it should be unnecessary for us to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-morrow, and that we should bring the Report and Third Reading to an end at half-past seven on Thursday evening, there are two points on which some accommodation, I think, might not unreasonably be made. If I am making this proposal, I think I ought to say at once how far I am prepared to go on the points which we have been discussing and on points still to be discussed. I should
be prepared to advise the House to accept an Amendment making the whole of this part of the Bill temporary—that, in fact, the whole Act would be a temporary Act. I agree that it may be argued—I have argued it myself—that if this Bill is right in principle, we ought to keep it going for ever. But, on the other hand, if we have the provision in force for a period, and the trade accommodates itself to it, and the thing proves to be convenient, then we ought not, at the end of that time, to rely on an Act of Parliament. If my view is right, the Act of Parliament will then be unnecessary. If the view of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite is right, and the Act has been wrong, then the Act would come to an end. If they meet me in that way, I think it will be reasonable to make the whole of the Act of a temporary character; that is to say, that both Part I and Part II, and the whole administration of the Act, should come to an end when the quota comes to an end.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I want to be quite clear about this. I could not accept an arrangement which was capable of being continued from year to year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman knows that no one can bind successive Governments. I believe that there is hardly any Act in the world which cannot be continued in an Expiring Laws Continuance Act, but I am quite clear as to what I mean. Parliament might pass a one-Clause Bill and say that this Act, notwithstanding anything, should continue for ever, but I am quite clear as to what I mean to be in the Bill. I mean, with the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsman, that what we should do is to legislate simply for 10 years, and that, so far as this Bill goes, this Bill, both as regards the quota and the other provisions, should all come to an end at the same time. That being so, the other suggestion which I have to make as in all the circumstances reasonable is that the quota should be fixed, instead of at a period of 12 years, at a period of 10 years. It was argued before that you must have a reasonable time, and I think it is feasible that, provided you give this industry time to have a year or two on
the maximum quota, if you are limiting it at all, you should not carry on the Act for a longer period than is absolutely necessary.
I agree it is a matter of give and take and accommodation as to what is a reasonable period, and the suggestion is that it should be a period of 10 years instead of the 12 years which now figures in the Bill. If we can meet on that basis we shall be doing a very reasonable and practical thing, and I will make myself responsible for having upon the Order Paper to-morrow the necessary Amendments which will both limit the operation of the whole of the Bill and of the quota to the 10 years, and whatever consequential Amendments are necessary. I give that undertaking now at once, and on that I understand that we may continue the Bill to-morrow and that we need not suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule and can bring our discussions to a end at 7.30 or thereabouts on Thursday evening.
With regard to the Clause itself, it is, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciates, the counterpart of Clause 1. What we are setting out to do is to put a stop to blind booking and to put a limit on advance booking. If Clause 2 were not in the Bill, there would still be an unlimited amount of advance booking, provided only that the films had been trade shown, and there would be nothing to prevent a renter from forcing English exhibitors to take an unlimited number of films, provided that they had been trade shown. I have received the strongest representation from exhibitors to maintain this Clause. They regard it as hardly less necessary than Clause 1. The view expressed to me by the exhibitors is that the period is a matter of trade convenience between exhibitors and renters. The exhibitors expressed preference for six months and the renters for nine months, and I think the fair thing to do is to accept the compromise which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. H. Williams), and which I am informed by these sections of the trade would be agreeable as reasonable. We give the trade time to adjust itself; the first period remains 12 months, and the second nine; but there are to be two years instead of one year and then, after the third year, the period shall be six months. I invite the House to accept the Amendment in that form.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I say a word about the arrangement upon which the President of the Board of Trade has spoken 1 Although the concessions by no means meet what we really require, nevertheless they are very substantial and considerable; but, while we realise the position, I want to make it quite clear that in communicating that to one or two of the leaders of our party we were not aware that it was proposed to close the Debate on Thursday evening. We have not had an opportunity of saying what time was suggested.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that it was originally suggested that there should be two days, and then there was a suggestion that the Third Reading should be taken on Friday. I understand that the arrangement already tentatively made is that it is more convenient to take the Landlord and Tenant Bill on Friday.

Mr. MacLAREN: And get on with something sensible.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Everybody is entitled to his opinion. It would be more convenient to give half-a-day on Thursday to the present Bill instead of taking half-a-day on Friday, which is equivalent to half-a-day.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am only making it clear that in our discussions with the Leader of the party we understood that we would get three full days, but closing at 7.30 on Thursday makes 2| days; and I am only saying, before we go any further, that we shall have to report what the President of the Board of Trade has said so that we may make our position clear.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand it is merely a question of reporting the modification of dates—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Which we shall support.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) was in his place when I reported the agreement, but I take it that the Leader of the Opposition has to be informed of this merely for the purpose of confirmation and not for further negotiation.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I anticipate no difficulty. I want to make it perfectly
clear that we have not had time to consult our leaders, but I have no doubt that it will be all right. With regard to the Amendment, I cannot understand why the President of the Board of Trade puts up the case that he does. If a film has actually been trade shown, why on earth should not a cinematograph exhibitor, if he wants to, book that film for a period longer ahead than six months. We have put this case again and again right through all the stages of the Bill, and we have never yet had a completely satisfactory answer to it. I consider that a very grave injustice will be done to some of the proprietors and managers of the second- and third-run cinema companies, and I want to put briefly to the House the case I put in Committee on this point. When I am at home I am expected sometimes to take the family to the nearest picture-house and that picture-house is not what you call a first-run house. It is a house where you get the second or third run of the bookings of a particular film, but it is important to the people who have their money invested in that house that all their regular clients should not be always running away three, four or five miles to see the first show of a film by what is called a first-run house. It is very essential therefore that they should be able to throw upon their screen from week to week announcements of the films they have got coming, including perhaps the very star or feature film which is being shown in some big cinema within three or four miles of that theatre. That is very important. I live in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Did you vote for him?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I had no opportunity of exercising my franchise.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Did the family?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I was engaged in getting other people to exercise their franchise. I should have thought that the Home Secretary would have been particularly anxious to see that a house such as they have in Twickenham is properly safeguarded in a matter of this kind. It seems to me perfectly ridiculous that in a Bill which starts off by saying it is wrong to have blind booking you
have a provision of this sort, and in the interests of the trade itself it ought to be open to the man who owns a second-or third-run house to be able to book six or nine months ahead all these star films.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word ' and,' in line 32, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 117.

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.).


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Withers, John James
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wolmer, Viscount
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Womersley, W. J.
Young, Rt. Hon Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Winby, Colonel L. P.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)



Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge& Hyde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Capt. Margesson and Mr. Penny.

Division No. 325.]
AYES.
[6.57 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, R. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Merriman, F. B.


Allen, J.Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Foster, Sir Henry S.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant


Baldwin, Rt. Hon Stanley
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Ganzoni, Sir John.
Newton, Sir. D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gates, Percy
Oakley, T.


Bennett, A. J.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Berry, Sir George
Goff, Sir Park
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bethel, A.
Gower, Sir Robert
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Grace, John
Pitcher G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bird. E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ralne, Sir Walter


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ramsden, E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rawson. Sir Cooper


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Ropner, Major L.


Brown,Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Buchan, John
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rye, F. G.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Salmon, Major I.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bullock, Captain M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandon, Lord


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hills, Major John Waller
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hilton, Cecil
Savery, S. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cassels, J. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forlar)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Skelton, A. N.


Cayzer, MaJ. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smithers. Waldron


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Huntingfield, Lord
Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm.,W.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Chapman, Sir S.
Illffe, Sir Edward M
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth. Cen'l)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Clarry, Reginald George
James, Lieut.Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Clayton, G. C.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Couper, J. B.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Loder, J. de V.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Long, Major Eric
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tinne, J. A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
MacIntyre, Ian
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
McLean, Major A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Drewe, C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watts, Dr. T.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, S. R.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Alexander, A. v. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardle, George D.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Snell, Harry


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Snowden Rt. Hon. Philip


Bondfield, Margaret
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Stamford, T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Strauss, E. A.


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sullivan, J.


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lowth, T.
Wallhead Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dumfermline)


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Forrest, W.
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Maxton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Glbbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Ritson, J.



Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, to leave out the word "twenty-nine" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty."
The object of this Amendment and of the following one which stands in my name is to give a little more elasticity to the trade during the period of transition. The subject has already been dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade in his speech, and, therefore, I will do no more than formally move the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 37, leave out the word " twenty-nine " and insert instead thereof the word " thirty."—[Mr. H. Williams.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(Penalty on Contraventions.)

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, after the word "Act," to insert the words
or if any person exhibits to the public in Great Britain a film the right to exhibit which has been acquired by him under any such agreement.
The object of this Amendment is to insert words to make the Clause effective. The Clause provides that a person who makes an agreement in contravention of the Act shall, if found guilty, be liable to a fine on summary conviction. The Amendment enforces that by saying if anybody exhibits a film the control of which has been obtained by him under an illegal agreement, he shall also be guilty of an offence. The Amendment is really supplemental to the provisions already in the Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What change does the Amendment make in the Bill?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had done me the privilege of listening to me he would have understood that the Amendment is to say that if a person exhibits a film the right to exhibit which has been acquired under an illegal agreement he shall be guilty of an offence, just as he is guilty when he makes the agreement. It is to enable the law to reach any one who has made an illegal agreement abroad, because he will be committing an offence in this country by exhibiting the film here. If the Bill remains as it is he may escape the meshes of the law, because he would say that he could not be prosecuted for making an agreement abroad.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Amendment is typical of the Solicitor-General, and his explanation also, I regret to say, bears some resemblance to what I have heard before. As a matter of fact, these words do not make the slightest bit of difference to the Bill, and the Solicitor-General knows it. We have already made it a criminal offence for a renter to come come to an agreement with an exhibitor that the exhibitor shall have the right to show the film, and under this Clause we devise penalties for either of those two parties, either the renter or the exhibitor. This Amendment has been put in, apparently, to catch the exhibitor again. After he has become a criminal through making an agreement he can then become a criminal again by showing the picture in accordance with the agreement. Exactly the same person is involved. I know what is at the back of the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is the fear that some of these unpatriotic exhibitors may come to an agreement in America with an alien renter and agree to rent a film and to show it. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought that in such a case the exhibitor would escape because the agreement, having been made with an alien renter in an alien land, would not be a crime in this country. But he forgets that, when the Bill was going through Committee, on one occasion when he was absent—he could not be there all the time, greatly to our regret—we added an Amendment which will get at these alien renters and at these agreements made with alien citizens. We decided that every renter, whether a German Jew, a
Gentile or anything else, if he wished to rent anything at all must have an office in this country where he could be got at, so that the agreement would be made in this country. The danger of the exhibitor slipping through the meshes of the law owing to the agreement which he made being made with a foreigner therefore falls to the ground. This Amendment makes no alteration whatever. The same exhibitor gets caught. I shall be sorry if we put these words in, because they make no difference, but I do not propose to vote against them. They are typical of the Government's understanding of this Measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel DAY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out the words "one hundred," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty."
This Amendment will make the Clause state that any person who enters into an agreement in contravention of this Part of the Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20. As we have already submitted to the House, we think the penalties under this Measure are too high. As regards exhibitors, may I draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the instances which were given in Committee of exhibitors who may quite unknowingly have broken the law as laid down in this part of the Act not only being dealt with summarily as provided for in this Clause, but being penalised again when they come before the licensing bench to ask for a renewal of their licences. As happened in the case of a licensee in Bolton, they may have their licences taken away in addition to having had to suffer the penalties under this Clause. There are many other injustices which the poor exhibitor will have to suffer, and as the President has generously stated that he was agreeable to the proposal to minimise the penalties, may I suggest to him that to accept this Amendment now and to make the figure £20 instead of £50—the figure which he has already agreed to, as I understand— would save a great deal of time and perhaps facilitate the passage of the other Amendments which are down.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
It would be detrimental to the interests of the film industry, and particularly hard upon the owners of small cinemas, if a heavy penalty of this character were inflicted because, possibly, of a mistake in book-keeping or some other mistake of an assistant for which the owner himself might not be personally responsible. An offence of this character is merely a technical offence, and I think a fine of £20 would meet the case and be a sufficient deterrent.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think that I can accept the Amendment to reduce the fine as low as £20. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment has proceeded on the assumption that £100 is a flat rate penalty. It is not. It is the maximum. He said it would be unfair to fine a person more than £20 for committing merely a technical offence, but a man who commits merely a technical offence will, in all probability, not be prosecuted, or, if he is, will not be convicted at all. It will be observed that what is covered is not primarily a technical offence, but a deliberate and wilful breach of the law. You might have a very large renter deliberately infringing in regard to blind and block booking. I do not think in such a case it can be said that £20 would be an adequate fine. I did say—and I am prepared to adhere to it, because that is to cover, not only the renter, but the exhibitor also—that I would bring it into line with the exhibitors' penalty which, on summary conviction, is a maximum of £50. If the Amendment were moved in that form, it would be more or less consistent, but certainly that is as far as I can go. I do not think it would be reasonable to have a penalty as low as £20 in the case of what might be a deliberate offence.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has met us to a certain extent, but I wish he would remember that there are two parties to the agreement and not only the renter. By entering into an agreement one of the parties may be forced to break the law and the unfortunate exhibitors will also be criminals. As I said, the right hon. Gentleman has met us to a certain extent, and in his speech earlier in the day he stated that he would meet us on these fines, though they are not the worst. The
worst fines, which are most outrageous, are those levied on people, whether renters or exhibitors, who do not take up a licence. Anybody is entitled to take out a licence, and he cannot be deprived of it whether he be renter or exhibitor. People are as free to take out licences as they are in the case of motor-cars, and it will be seen further on that if any of these people omit to take out licences they are subject to a fine of £20 a day, which bears no relation whatever to people who do not take out motor licences. Yet it is merely a matter of writing to the authorities and paying £l in the case of the exhibitor and £5 in the case of the renter. I did hope, when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about meeting us, that he had 'thought about this very heavy fine. In this case we accept his suggestion, but what I am asking for is that the right hon. Gentleman should realise, that there are worse cases further on and that it is more than desirable that he should meet us on them.

Question, "That the words ' one hundred ' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word ' twenty ' be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word ' fifty ' be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to. — [Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to insert the words
and any agreement in contravention of this Part of this Act, wherever made, shall be invalid.
This is in the nature of a consequential Amendment to Clause 1 as it stood in the Bill before the Amendment which 1 last moved was inserted. The Amendment which I am now moving means that in addition to an offence being committed by the maker of the agreement, the agreement itself will be unenforceable.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the Solicitor-General one question? I am a babe in these matters, not being a great lawyer. Surely any agreement which is illegal is, in common law, invalid. I had always imagined that if you made an agreement which was illegal, you could not enforce it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is not quite as the right hon. and gallant
Gentleman states it. If he will give an illustration of a particular agreement which is illegal, I will tell him whether it is enforceable or not.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: This is all very amusing from the point of view of legal phraseology. [An HON. MEMBER: "Blind booking."] We must be very careful what powers we are giving to the Government or we shall surely be blind booking rather heavily in this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will remember when we were discussing this kind of case upstairs in Committee that we agreed it would be possible to have an agreement made of this kind, not in this country, but say in the Irish Free State, or possibly in America. I understand the right hon. Gentleman wishes to provide that the agreement wherever made shall be invalid. What is to prevent an agreement being made in America and that agreement being enforced against the British party here 1 I cannot see that there will be any protection to any person in this country in the case of such an agreement if he has to appear before the American courts of jurisdiction, and he may find himself very seriously placed there. On the other hand, it seems to me that in this country the converse take place and that whatever damages either party to the agreement thinks he may have incurred he would fail to obtain them in a British court of law. That seems to operate rather arbitrarily against the people who sign the agreements.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to existing agreements.)

Colonel DAY: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out from the word "the" in line 1 to the word " and" in line 3, and to insert instead thereof the words " tenth day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven."
The object of this Amendment is to allow all contracts to be valid which were entered into before the commencement of this Act. The Clause, as it stands at the present time, invalidates any agreements for the showing of films which may have been negotiated and completed before the passage of this Act. As we have tried to demonstrate to the House previously this afternoon, the
cinema industry, especially from the exhibitors' point of view, depends greatly on certain arrangements that have been made in advance, and it would be not only unjust, but a very grave injustice, to many exhibitors throughout this country were this Clause to be passed as originally framed. The House will have seen this afternoon that even the right hon. Gentleman has had to admit this by the acceptance, which he has very generously conceded in some cases, of alterations or suggestions which have come from the other side of the House, and I venture to suggest that this is another case where he can very well accept the suggestions which we are-making for the alteration of the Clause-. It will not only assist him in the wording of the Act, but be of very great benefit to the exhibitors of cinema films in this country.

Mr. DUNCAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD:: Is it possible for the President of the Board of Trade to accept the Amendment 1 If there be a possibility of coming to terms on this matter, perhaps he could leave it to a free vote of the House. Clause 4 as it stands makes all contracts entered into before the passing of the Act illegal. A great many similar exhibitors have already entered into contracts to fill their theatres, but these contracts will become illegal, and the renters may either demand much bigger prices for showing them or, if they are shown, the exhibitors may refuse to pay. I do not speak in this case in the interest of exhibitors, but in the interest of the whole community. It is not right that we should be able to pass Acts of Parliament which make illegal acts which have been done when they were perfectly legal. I object to the whole Bill making illegal acts, bargains, and arrangements, and definite conclusions, which have been come to between individuals. But to say that an agreement made even a year before this Act becomes law shall become illegal by the passing of the Act is quite a new thing in British law, and I think we ought to have from the learned Solicitor-General a definite statement as to whether there are precedents for legislation of this sort, which make something which was legal when it was done years before illegal by the passing of an Act.
The Amendment which has been put down is a half-way house, and says that at the moment of the introduction of this Bill all the renters and exhibitors of this country had warning that the Government were going, not only to introduce, but to pass, this Bill. There seems to be reasonable ground for saying that agreements which were made before the Bill was introduced on the 10th of March, 1927, are legal, but that anybody entering into an agreement after that date has had full notice, and that therefore their contracts may very well be scrapped. I do not agree, but still there is something to be said for that point of view. I do not agree to scrapping any contracts by retrospective legislation, but there is something to be said for scrapping those made after the introduction of the Bill. We put the Amendment down, and we took this date so that we might have the largest measure of support in this House. I do wish we could get an ordinary, straightforward vote of Members of the Conservative party, because I cannot think that anyone who is a good and sound constitutionalist could vote for a Clause in an Act of Parliament which deliberately scraps contracts in this way.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This question was very fully debated in Committee, and the reason this date was adhered to was that it was felt that full notice had been given in the House of Commons that this legislation would be made retrospective in this sense. It was well-known that discussions were going on to try to frame a definite agreement with the trade; in fact, it was common knowledge that the foreign renter would utilise that period of incubation to force people to enter into long contracts. May I point out that on the 3rd August, 1926, I stated in the House of Commons:
Obviously it will be quite impossible for me to make a statement of policy until we have discussed the matter at the Imperial Conference, but I think I should, perhaps, says this: all sections of the trade have known for months past that the Government would have to consider the desirability of legislation, either if the trade recommended agreed proposals, or in default of such agreement. That being so, I think it right to say that in the event of the Government introducing legislation they must not be held to be precluded from making that legislation effective, notwithstanding any trade arrangements which
might have been made with a view to nullifying its effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; cols. 2777–78, Vol. 198.]
Therefore full notice was given in the House of Commons upon this point, and everybody in the trade knew that quite well. .If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) requires a precedent, he will find it in legislation which took place under Mr. Bonar Law's administration which followed exactly the same precedent as we are folio win?' in this case.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I have listened with great interest to the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman as to why this Clause should remain in the Bill, and why it should be retrospective. I cannot agree that the words which have been quoted from the President's announcement on the 3rd August, 1926, justify the Government in proposing a Clause of this kind. What the right hon. Gentleman said in his warning in August, 1926, was that the Government ought not to be precluded from taking such steps as would be necessary to prevent any arrangement being entered into which would nullify the effect of the Bill. Can it be said that arrangements entered into to put films ahead for one, two or three years do, in fact, nullify the whole section of this Bill 1 I think by introducing a proposal which will make null and void agreements entered into before the passing of this Bill you are taking a very dangerous course. I have no doubt the advisers of the President of the Board of Trade can find precedents, but it is a serious matter for business men to find that, after making a contract, it becomes null and void because they have not the warning which was given by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the supply of films. That seems to me to be quite unreasonable.
I want hon. Members to note the effect on contracts of other kinds which this principle may have in the future. During the whole of the period from 3rd August, 1926, to November, 1927, the whole trade will be in a state of complete uncertainty as to whether there is going to be legislation of this kind or not. During the whole of that time the Government have asked these people not to enter into certain agreements which previously have been perfectly legal. I ask hon. Members
who are connected with business to apply the same principle to other businesses. Suppose a similar announcement is made by the head of the Government. Although legislation may be delayed two or three years the particular trade affected during that period will be put into a condition of complete uncertainty as to whether the business men can enter into legal contracts, because legislation of a retrospective character may be passed making such agreements null and void. I think this Clause ought to be wiped out, and the Bill should operate only from the date it becomes law and placed upon the Statute Book.

Mr. DUNCAN: I understand that the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade was to the effect that in the event of the introduction of legislation of this kind it would be retrospective. I think such legislation is against all sense of justice, and it is certainly against all practice in law. We could understand such proposals as these being put forward in Russia, but we cannot understand their being introduced by a Conservative Government. It is only fair to point out to the President of the Board of Trade that he is setting a remarkable example for those sitting on this side of the House to follow. It seems to me a wicked thing from the point of view of a Conservative Government that they should be setting up such a precedent as this. It is obvious that engagements and contracts may have been entered into since the 3rd August, 1926.
May I give an illustration? When it was proposed to place taxation on foreign

motor cars I know that millions of pounds worth of motor cars evaded the tax simply because the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not ante-date his legislation. There is no difference in the practice adopted between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade in regard to this matter. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer lost a very considerable sum of money in this way in connection with his taxation of motor cars, because in the intervening interval between the announcement of the tax and its passing into law an immense number of motor cars were imported every week into this country. It seems to me to be a very big mistake for the House of Commons to be legislating in this way, because it is bound to make everybody uneasy who enters into contracts as to whether, after all, the whole thing may be set aside, and they may lose very considerable sums of money, although they have made their contracts in a perfectly legal and businesslike manner. Such legislation as this creates uncertainty, and nobody would know from moment to moment when to expect the passing of legislation breaking all sorts of contracts. Legislation of this kind is wrong, and it cannot be made right by any kind of argument. 'It is an undoubted fact that by passing this proposal the House is setting up a precedent which may be followed by other Governments in due course.

Question put, "That the words pre-posed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 116.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Savery, S. S.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Loder, J. de V.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Gates, Percy
Long, Major Eric
Shepperson, E. W.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Skelton, A. N.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smithers, Waldron


Grace, John
MacIntyre, Ian
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
McLean, Major A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Margesson, Captain D.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwlch)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hammersley, S. S.
Merriman, F. B.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tinne, J. A.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oakley, T.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hills, Major John Waller
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hilton, Cecil
Penny, Frederick George
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perkins. Colonel E. K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pilcher, G.
Watts, Dr. T.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wells, S. R.


Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Raine, Sir Walter
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ramsden, E.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hudson, Capt. A. u. M.(Hackney,N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Huntingfield, Lord
Remnant, Sir James
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hurd, Percy A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Withers, John James


Hurst, Gerald B.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wolmer, Viscount


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Womersley, W. J.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ropner, Major L.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rye, F. G.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Kennedy A. R. (Preston)
Salmon, Major I.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sandeman, N. Stewart



Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sanderson, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandon, Lord
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

Division No. 326,]
AYES.
[7.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bullock, Captain M.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Campbell, E. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cassels, J. D.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovll)


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W,
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bethel, A.
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W.)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Drewe, C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Chapman, Sir S.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve
Clayton, G. C.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Briggs, J. Harold
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Brittain, Sir Harry
Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C (Berks.Newb'y)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Buchan, John
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Ford, Sir P. J.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Crookshank, Col. C. do W. (Berwick)
Foster, Sir Henry S.


Bull, Rt. Hon. sir William James
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Forrest, W.
Lawrence, Susan


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gardner, J. P.
Lawson, John James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gibbins, Joseph
Lowth, T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gosling, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Baker, Walter
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Greenall, T.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Barnes, A.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bondfield, Margaret
Groves. T.
Murnin, H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grundy, T. W.
Naylor, T. E.


Broad, F. A.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold


Bromfield, William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll
Paling, W.


Bromley, J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hardie, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Potts, John S.


Buchanan, G.
Hayday, Arthur
Riley, Ben


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks.W.R., Elland


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Connolly, M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cove, W. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Day, Colonel Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Dennison, R.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe,


Duncan, C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Dunnico, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Varley, Frank B.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Stamford, T. W.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Stephen, Campbell
Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sullivan, J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sutton, J. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wright, W.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah



Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Welsh, J. C. 
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thurtle, Ernest
Westwood, J.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Tinker, John Joseph
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out the words " thirtieth day of September," and to insert instead thereof the words " thirty-first day of December."
This Amendment is consequential on the postponement of the commencement of the Act until the 1st January of next year. It makes the date one year from the commencement of the Act, and, therefore, brings the Clause, as was intended, exactly into line with Sub-section (2, a) of Clause 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 5.—(Prohibition against exhibition of unregistered films.)

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, to leave out the word " January," and to insert instead thereof the word " April."
The object is to give an increased time for the beginning of the register, and the same date struck both the Opposition and myself as being a practically convenient one.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out the words " to which this Act applies."
We have already referred largely to the register in the preceding Clauses, and in Clause 5 the register is actually established. It enacts that on and after a certain day no film to which this Act applies shall be exhibited to the public of Great Britain unless the film has been registered, with the proviso that it shall not apply to films which have been exhibited before the commencement of the Act. All new films have to be registered before they are exhibited, or rather, it says that all films to which this Act applies have to be registered before being exhibited, and I desire by my Amendment to leave out the words "to which this Act applies."
At first sight this seems rather contrary to our usual principles in the
Opposition; it asks that every film should be registered. It does so for this reason. The exhibitor is put under a serious penalty if he exhibits films which have not been registered. While the Bill was going through Committee we added very largely to the number of films to which it does not apply. We included a number of educational, instructional and advertising films among those which can be shown but need not be registerd, and, again, there are old films. How is the exhibitor to know whether an old film has been registered or not 1 The exhibitor is not able to rent or show films unless he knows definitely that they have been registered. There are many films now that need not be registered, and there are a. number on the border-line which may or may not be registered. I want to have the register complete, so that the exhibitor can go to it and see definitely whether the whole of his programme has been duly registered in order that he may not break the law.
At the present moment he may see that a certain number of his films have not been registered, but may think it is all right because they are not registrable. Then he may find that he has broken the law because some film is not registered, not because it ought not to be registered, but because it has not been registered by the owner of the film. I would like the register, which must be consulted by the exhibitor, to be complete, so as to show the exhibitor what he may and what he may not do. A complete register will state whether the film is long or short, whether it is British or foreign, and whether it may be accepted to count towards the quota or not. If the register is incomplete, it will not be a satisfactory or sufficient guide to the people who have to consult it.

Sir B. CHADWICK: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's anxiety is to register all films, because he fears that many exhibitors might not have the opportunity of knowing whether a particular film is registered or not. The Bill
does provide for full publication in the " Board of Trade Journal " of all registered films, and there is no doubt that in the trade papers there will be very full publication of this information. It would be a very serious matter to have to register some of the films which are excluded under Clause 26. Take, for instance, the case of news films. How would it be possible, between the finish of a football match and the throwing of a picture of it on the screen at eight o'clock, to produce and register the film 1 I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that it would not be possible. Such a provision might create great inconvenience, or might lead to the exclusion from the screen of a, very interesting and pleasure-giving type of film. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

Colonel DAY: It is quite pleasant to have had that explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary, but, as far as we are concerned, it is not lucid. Everything that it has been possible to do in this Bill to penalise the exhibitor and renter has been done. If we go further down this Clause, we see that the poor exhibitor, again, is subject to penalties of £20 a day. Eight through this Bill we have penal Clauses enforced against the exhibitor. If the President of the Board of Trade wanted to make this Clause effective, he should have taken powers to penalise also the producer, because there is nothing to stop the producer from informing the exhibitor that certain films have been registered, and the exhibitor may book the film without taking the necessary precaution, which he should take1, of finding out, and may be penalised to the extent of £20 per day for each offence.
In Committee I suggested that the President of the Board of Trade should consider having each film marked with a Government mark, so that, before the exhibitor displayed it, he would be

thoroughly aware that the film had been properly registered, and thus have some protection. At any rate, it could be arranged that all films registered should be published regularly in the " Board of Trade Journal," so that the exhibitor may have an opportunity of seeing whether the films that he is showing or booking have been properly registered, rather than placing the liability on his shoulders and penalising him to the heavy extent that this Clause docs. It must sicken some hon. Members opposite to see all these new penalties introduced. I hate the introduction of penalties for every conceivable thing. We have in almost every Clause penalties introduced for things that the exhibitor or renter should not be made liable for. For these reasons I support the Amendment.

Mr. KELLY: If there has been one statement made in the discussion which has proved our case it is that of the Parliamentary Secretary. He took as an illustration the film of a football match which it was desired to show the same night. He pointed out what a sacrifice that would be if people could not see it until it was registered. That might apply to other films that a smart manager had come across and believed it would be of great advantage to show immediately—one of those things which I believe is called in the trade a scoop, or some word of that kind. Under this Bill the exhibitor would not be permitted to show it until he had gone through all the process of registration and a trade show and all the rest of it. While I do not like these restrictive Clauses at all, on this occasion, in order to show how bad the Bill is, I am prepared to vote for the. Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 117.

Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Couper, J. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ropner, Major L.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Rye, F. G


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salmon, Major I.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Huntingfield, Lord
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Illfie, Sir Edward M.
Sandon, Lord


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Savery, S. S.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Drewe, C.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Skelton, A. N.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Loder, J. de V.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Everard, W. Lindsay
Long, Major Eric
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Fraser, Captain Ian
MacIntyre, Ian
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McLean, Major A.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gates, Percy
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tinne, J. A


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Captain D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Grace, John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Merriman, F. B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Naylor, T. E.
Watts, Dr. T.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Oakley, T.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Withers, John James


Henderson,Capt.R.R.(Oxford, Henley)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Pilcher, G.
Womersley, W. J.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgewater)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raine, Sir Walter
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ramsden, E.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hills, Major John Waller
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hilton, Cecil
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Remnant, Sir James
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr Penny.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Division No. 327.]
AYES.
[8.4 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Campbell, E. T.


Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cassels. J. O.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Briggs, J. Harold
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Chapman, Sir S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown, Brlq.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Buchan, John
Clarry, Reginald George


Bethel, A.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Clayton, G. C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Bullock, Captain M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cadogan, Major Hon Edward
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dalton, Hugh
Hayday, Arthur


Adamson. W. M. (Staff.. Cannock)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hayes, John Henry


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Day, Colonel Harry
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dennison, R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Duncan, C.
Hirst, G. H.


Baker, Walter
Dunnico, H.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Forrest, W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Barnes, A.
Gardner, J. P.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Batey, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Gillett, George M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Bondfield, Margaret
Gosling, Harry
Kelly, W. T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kennedy, T.


Broad, F. A.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Bromfield, William
Greenall, T.
Kirkwood, D.


Bromley, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lawrence, Susan


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lowth, T.


Buchanan, G.
Groves, T.
Lunn, William


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Grundy, T. W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Cape, Thomas
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
MacNelll-Weir, L.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
March, S.


Connolly, M.
Hardie, George D.
Maxton, James


Cove, W. G.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Montague, Frederick

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Murnin, H.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Oliver, George Harold
Snell, Harry
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Paling, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Welsh, J. C.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stamford, T. W.
Westwood, J.


Potts, John S.
Stephen, Campbell
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Riley, Ben
Sullivan, Joseph
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Ritson, J.
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Scrymgeour, E.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Scurr, John
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wright, W.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Varley, Frank B.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton}


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Viant, S. P.



Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wallhead, Richard C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sitch, Charles H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, leave out lines 25 and 26.— (Colonel Wedgwood.]

In page 3, line 29, leave out the words

"to exhibitors or to the public."—[Colonel Day.]

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided, however, that no one shall be fined under Section three and under Section five of this Act in connection with the same film.
This is a point which we had under discussion in Committee and one to which the Opposition attaches considerable importance. We have protested all through that the Bill is making far too many new offences. The President of the Board of Trade has partially met us by reducing the maximum penalty from £100 to £50 and now we are concerned to try to obtain a further concession that a renter or exhibitor should not be savagely and brutally punished for a technical offence. I think that is a reasonable request to make. The cinematograph industry seems to me to be hedged round already by far too many Government restrictions. Unfortunately, the cinema-owner will often find himself in danger of petty prosecution and of a fine in other connections after the passing of the Bill, and if he is going to be liable to two or three other offences, in regard to which action can be taken against him, then, I think, he will be in rather a false position. As it is not desirable to have two prosecutions and fines in connection with one film, I hope the Government will be able to accept the Amendment.

Colonel DAY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir B. CHADWICK: 1 am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment,, for this reason. Clause 3 and Clause 5 deal with entirely different sets of circumstances at different times involving different people. Clause 5 has to do with exhibitions and Clause 3 deals-with blind and block booking. It is really hardly possible to deal with the point as the hon. Member wants. Surely it must be a matter for the Court to decide whether a person is breaking the law in one or two or more places. I do not think we can deal with it in the Bill, and I regret that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I realise, of course, that the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment because the President is away, and he marked the Amendment paper. But let us remember that the Amendment only comes into operation when it is the same person. The hon. Member said it was a different person, but it is not. It is the same person. The exhibitor makes an agreement, which is proved to be an illegal agreement, to hire a certain film. He is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of £50.

Sir B. CHADWICK: May I interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? Clause 5 has to do with the exhibitor, and Clause 3 has to do with the renter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is where you have made a mistake. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have amended it!"]: No, it is not a question of amendment even. It does not only deal with the renter; it deals with both parties. Either party making an agreement is liable to that fine. As I have said before, the Government do not understand their own* Bill. Clause 3 says it is a crime to make an agreement. It does not make it a
crime for the renter only to make an agreement, but for both parties. A person is caught again under Clause 5 in connection with an exactly similar act, and all we ask is that he should not be doubly a criminal for what is in fact one act, namely, hiring and exhibiting a film. I do not think there is any very im-

portant matter involved in this Amendment, but I do think we ought to have a correct reply rather than an incorrect one.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 190.

Division No. 328.]
AYES.
[8.21 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grundy, T. W.
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Hardle, George D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sullivan, J.


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, D.
Varley, Frank B.


Charleton, H. C
Lawrence, Susan
Viant, S. P.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Day, Colonel Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Westwood, J.


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson. Ellen C.


Forrest, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Glbbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Riley, Ben
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chapman, Sir S.
Everard. W. Lindsav


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Clarry, Reginald George
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clayton, G. C.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Couper, J. B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bethel, A.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Ganzonl, Sir John.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gates, Percy


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Briggs, J. Harold
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brittain, Sir Harry
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Goff, Sir Park


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grace, John


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland N.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Buchan, John
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Buckingham, Sir H.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bullock, Captain M.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Grotrian, H. Brent


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Drewe, C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Campbell, E. T.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Cassels, J. D.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Shepperson, E. W.


Hartington, Marquess of
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Skelton, A. N.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L, (Bootle)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smithers, Waldron


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Merriman, F. B.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hills, Major John Waller
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hilton, Cecil
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Oakley, T.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Huntingfield, Lord
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pilcher, G.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hurst, Gerald B.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Tinne, J. A.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Raine, Sir Walter
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ramsden, E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Remnant, Sir James
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Roberts, E. H. G (Flint)
Watts, Dr. T.


Lamb, J. Q.
Ropner, Major L.
Wells, S. R.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Loder, J. de V.
Rye, F. G.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Long, Major Eric
Salmon, Major I.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Withers, John James


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Womersley, W. J.


MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Sandon, Lord
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Macdonald, Capt. P. O. (I. of W.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


MacIntyre, I.
Savery, S. S.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


McLean, Major A.
Shaw. R G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)



Macmillan, Captain H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Capt. Margesson and Mr. Penny.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 6.—(Registration of Films.)

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 1 to 6, inclusive.
This is a Proviso which we think is quite unnecessary. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that the words of the Proviso actually restrict the registration of films. Films can be dealt with and exhibited without being registered, but we submit that they would only be wanted on the register for quota purposes. The people who own these British films will want them to go on the register and we shall probably, as a result, see the kind of film which is being circulated at the present time as British films. It is a pity that so much of the production of British films which goes on should only be in the direction of war films. One is asked, "Have you been to see the battle of Coronel film"? and so forth. I have not been to see the Coronel film, but I am told that it is a very remarkable film and of very good photography. I dare say that may be so, and that the same may be said of other war films which are being produced by British producers. The great majority of British films which
have been successful have been war films. It seems to me that it is quite likely that we shall go on permitting the production of British films only of a military character, and it will be possible to put these back on to the register again and again as old films. It would be much better to prohibit registration altogether than to leave in the hands of the Board of Trade the power of giving a value to selected films by permitting registration for quota purpose. This is a substantial Amendment, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept it.

Colonel DAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) that in late months the majority of films that one has been asked to see on "spec" have been films of the character described by the hon. Member. The proviso which we move to delete would defeat one of the objects of the Bill.

Sir B. CHADWICK: There will be many films, old films, which will have a certain exhibition value, and no doubt many of the renters of these films will wish to register them to enable them to
count for quota purposes; but it would never do to give that facility to the renter merely because he happened to possess an old film and that he should be able to register it, unless the Board of Trade beforehand have some kind of supervision over the film and know that it has an exhibition value and that it should be counted for quota purposes. Otherwise, you would have renters unloading on to the quota all kinds of dud films which really would not achieve the object of the Bill, namely, the stimulation of the production of British films. With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough in regard to war films, of course, we have war films and it is an absorbing subject on which to produce a film, but that will gradually wear away. I should be very sorry to see war films continue in the future. No doubt there will be many other films, some of which we know today, which will have an exhibition value and which could reasonably be counted for quota, although they are old films. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. KELLY: I think the arguments used by the Parliamentary Secretary are all in favour of accepting the Amendment. He mentioned that a renter might have some old films and that he would proceed to register them. If they are British films and they are registered to count for the quota, it would be to his advantage, but if they are foreign films then it will not be to his advantage to have them registered. I am surprised that the Government have not seen that the Amendment is much more in favour of their idea than anything he has put into the Measure. I hope that even against the opposition of the Government we shall go into the Division Lobby in order to show them that if they cannot make their Bill into the thing which they desire it should be, it can be made so by the Opposition.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I rather sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary. I have often made out a good case for a different Amendment and an uncommonly good case against the Amendment that has been moved. The Parliamentary Secretary's arguments are in favour of this Amendment. The arguments may have been against some other Amend-
ment, but they were certainly in favour of this Amendment, and I think they were very conclusive. Just consider, all old films can be bought and sold and shown without Government interference. This proviso says that they shall not be registered. I say "hear hear" to that. Why should they be? There is no need to register. All that this proviso says is that these films shall not be registered. Do we want this proviso 1 It reads:
Provided that a film which has been exhibited …. before the commencement of this Act shall not be registered—
and then come the fatal words—
unless the Board of Trade …. determine that the registration of the film shall be allowed.
The only films which will want to be registered are British films. There is no need to register foreign films whatever. British films, if they can get on the register, can count on the quota. Every old British film will want to get on the register, every single old film that has ever been produced, because if they are on the register then renters will spot them and exhibitors will buy them and they will have an enormous market open. They will be the cheapest stuff and fill the quota. Therefore they will want to get a place on the register in order to find a purchaser. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade says, "Yes, but the Board of Trade will stop them." They are not going to be put on the register unless the Board of Trade agrees. Is it fair to put the Board of Trade in the position of making or destroying the value of film property? If they can get on the register it is worth £50 or £70 to a film; if they do not they are not worth a half-penny. You leave that to the Board of Trade. I do not think you should. The Board of Trade is to decide whether an old film is adequately patriotic. We have heard a good deal about war films, with a hero and heroine running down the trenches. The number of heroines who seem to live in trenches is beyond computation. All these come before the Board of Trade, and the hon. Member now in charge of the Bill has to decide whether she shall be perpetuated or not. The answer is in the negative. I do not think it is fair to the hon. Member himself. He is not a capable judge of a French heroine or a British heroine. I do not think any Member of this House should be placed in
such an invidious position. I do not like the proviso at all, and what I like least about it is the idea that the Board of Trade should have powers which have such a very big financial effect upon the people who come before them. In nine cases out of ten a petition to be put on the register will be turned down and the people who are turned down will inevitably think that the man who gets through with his film has done so by favouritism, if not something worse. The worst form of vices will come in under this proviso, which is a proviso that nobody wants.

Captain GARRO-JONES: While I am generally in favour of this Bill I find myself a little alarmed by the defence of the Parliamentary Secretary on this Amendment. He stated that the Board of Trade has to decide whether certain films have an exhibition value or not. Under what part of the Bill will that power be exercised 1 Is it to be the Advisory Committee or will there be some special body set up to see these films and decide whether they have an exhibition value or not?

Mr. SOMERVILLE: The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has made out an elaborate case for the Amendment, but he left out some things. He left out the words:
after consultation with the Advisory Committee hereinafter mentioned.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is a subsequent Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Amendment is to leave out the whole proviso.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Yes, and that leaves out the words I have quoted, and I am going to give the reason why they should not be left out. The advisory committee will consist of people who are qualified to judge, representatives of the renters, exhibitors and general public, and when that advisory committee is of opinion that the film is not of the requisite standard it seems to me a good reason why that film should not be registered.

Mr. STEPHEN: I want to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that as there is no vital principle involved in this Amendment he should leave it to a free vote of the House. The progress the Government are making with this
Measure to-day should encourage them to accept this suggestion. It has been made perfectly plain that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is not at all' convinced by his own arguments, and no one who has been listening to the discussion on this Amendment has been convinced by the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary. Those who have been privileged to hear the points put from this side and the counterpoints from the other side must be agreed that the balance of argument, if there is any argument on the other side, is in favour of the Amendment. The suggestion has been made by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) that there is a tremendous amount of authority in the fact that there will be consultation with the advisory committee. This advisory committee is going to be a very important body indeed. They are going to have a great deal of work to do in connection with this Measure. I suggest that this is a needless burden to impose on this Committee. These old films, if they are left out of account altogether, can be bought and sold and exhibited, and if you allow them to be registered, if they get the approval of the Government, what advantage is there in the registration of these old films? I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give us a single instance where any advantage has been gained by the registration of these old films.
The whole purport of this Measure is to increase the production of British films, to make British films a serious contribution to film production. If you are to allow old films to be registered, you will take away the incentive to the trade to produce new films. You will give a premium to the most stagnant minds in the trade. They will depend on the old stock, and they will try to get it registered. Suppose that nine-tenths of these old British films are refused registration. The Board of Trade is going to be up to date; the advisory committee is going to deal smartly with the industry, it is going to put pep and push into this business and get production going. Suppose we say that 90 per cent. of the applications for registration are refused. The result will be that much ill-feeling will be aroused against the 10 per cent. that succeed. The 90 per cent., when they cannot get satisfaction from the Board of Trade, will come before Members of
Parliament, and each Member will have his work immensely increased. It will be like a new Department on pensions, or Ministry of Labour unemployment benefit cases. We shall be asked, "Why did not this fine old British film, 'Peter the Painter,' get registered by the Board of Trade?" There is really nothing in favour of this part of the Bill. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should leave the matter to the independent vote of Members of the House, in which case I am confident that there will be no Division, because no one will want to retain this Clause in the Bill.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: If the House is to gather anything from the criticisms of hon. Gentlemen opposite it is that, even before the constitution of the Advisory Committee is announced, hon. Members have no faith in that Committee at all. It seems rather curious that hon. Gentlemen should attempt to criticise a Committee of this importance even before the members of it are announced in the House. The last speaker referred to old films. If He visits the cinema very often, as I have no doubt he does in Glasgow, he will appreciate the revival of films in the same way that he appreciates the revival of certain very entertaining plays. The general public has often a great interest in the revival of a film which has a historic or romantic interest. I suggest that this Advisory Committee would act in the same way as the present Board of Control, which is presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). All Members of the House would have more faith in an impartial Advisory Committee than in a Committee which is established purely by trade interests. All the arguments which we hear from hon. Members opposite are against trade interests or trade committees. This Advisory Committee will be absolutely impartial. Trade interests will be represented certainly, but at the same time the general public will be represented, and those gentlemen who represent the public, I feel sure, will not be apt to allow a film to be registered if they do not think it is of sufficient interest to the public at large. We have no ground to assume that the Advisory Committee will allow films of second-rate
quality to be registered, if they feel that the films are being registered only for the sake of fulfilling the quota.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I asked a question and the Minister—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. and gallant Member has already spoken.

Captain GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order. I did not make any speech; I merely asked a question. If you rule that my previous essay was a speech, may I now ask a question? I asked the Parliamentary Secretary who was to be the actual official. Is the whole Advisory Committee to attend, to see whether these films have an exhibition value or not? If so, it appears to me that they will have nothing else to do.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now leaving the interrogative.

Mr. WALLHEAD: A question has been asked in a very conciliatory manner, and in most eloquent terms by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), as to whether this matter will be left to a free Vote of the House The right hon. and gallant Member for Newastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) was equally convincing in his speech. The arguments are overwhelming against the proposal of the Bill. If the Advisory Committee is to spend its time chasing the various heroines who run up and down the trenches, particularly in the first months of its initiation in its new job, the Committee will have no time to attend to the new films that ought to be crowding in. We do not know who the members of the; Committee will be. It may be that they will meet with as much faith as the Broadcasting Corporation Committee when it was set up. There is no guarantee that the Committee will secure any more confidence than other Committees set up on other occasions. It should be the object of the Government not to allow wretched old films to come on to the list, but to get them out of the way, and to fill up with films better produced. An hon. and gallant Member opposite mentioned historic films. I went to see one. It was said to be first class fare. I saw its revival. I discovered that the "stone" pillars that fell down in
frightful collapse floated about in the water into which they fell. I do not know if it was a British film. At any rate, it was not up-to-date, and we ought to keep out films of that sort. The idea of school children witnessing films depicting scenes which are in defiance of all natural laws, and against all that they are taught in school, is altogether wrongs We ought to keep out such pictures in order to make way for new and better pictures, and I hope the Minister will respond to the request that there should be a free Vote of the House on this subject.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I speak as one who is neutral on this Bill, and who almost voted with the Government on the last occasion. I have no strong opinions on the Bill, and I believe I might be convinced of the Government's case, but the Government's own representatives have not given me a chance. I listened to the hon. Member for East Cardiff, who put his case in a straightforward and eloquent fashion, but I cannot say that he convinced me. He complained that old films might not be shown under this proposal, but there is nothing to prevent them being shown. All we are asking is that they should not count for quota purposes. If they have historic or romantic interest, nobody suggests that they should not be shown. But the Advisory Committee and the industry ought to concentrate on new ideas and new methods. That is the issue.

Captain A. EVANS: I am sure if the hon. Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) were in the House, he might be very much annoyed at the hon. Member's remarks.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am sorry if I have mistaken the hon. and gallant Member's constituency. I should have said South Cardiff. I ought to have known that the East is generally very wise in its choice of representatives. The President of the Board of Trade is now present, and he can take upon himself a responsibility which possibly his less distinguished colleague could not take—and I say so without any intention of slighting in any way the Parliamentary Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, tried to conduct these proceedings in a spirit of fair play, and in continuance of that
spirit I ask him to allow us a free vote on this important question. I think all the arguments have been in our favour, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot allow a free vote on the question, I hope he will state the reasons for the Government's insistence on defeating this Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON: I thought that either the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary would have responded to the exceptionally courteous approach which has been made to them across the Floor of the House on this matter. I had not the inestimable advantage of sitting on the Committee which dealt with this Bill upstairs, and I came to the discussion here with a fresh mind. In the early stage of this discussion I frankly confess I did not grasp the point at issue. I was to some extent misled by what, I presume, were technical or trade terms used by the defenders of the Bill—terms such as "dud" films. I presume that is a highly technical description of some particular grade or class of film, but the word is new to me. I have listened carefully to all that has been said, and I am amazed that the Government should resist the appeal we are making to them. If I appreciate the position, this Bill was introduced by the Government on the plea or the pretext that if the British film industry could be protected against certain forms of competition that industry would boom and millions of people who cannot now find employment in the mines and the textile industry would then be employed in producing films.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I presume the hon. Member is coming to the point as to whether there should be any restriction on registration or not.

Mr. MAXTON: I have never been away from that point. My hon. Friends here are appealing to the Minister on the ground that if old films are to be included they certainly will not stimulate the production of new films. They are asking the Minister to have the courage of his convictions. The right hon. Gentleman is regarded in this House as the man who will push the principle of Protection to its limit. He is no milk-and-water Protectionist; he is a whole-hogger and only he has regard to
the feelings of his colleagues in the Cabinet; he would push his principle to its extreme limit. Here, on this Measure of which he is in charge, he is afraid to accede to a request of the Opposition that he should push his own principle to the extreme. If I am right in my understanding of the position of the Minister with reference to this Amendment, I cannot say that I think a great deal of his courage or of his alleged devotion to the principle that British industry should be encouraged first. He admits that the British film industry in the past was not on a level with foreign competition—that was the excuse for producing the Bill—but he is prepared to allow all the wreckage of the past—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the question is whether there should be any restriction on registration or not.

Mr. MAXTON: I was saying on the question of registration that the Minister is prepared to allow all this material of the past, all this bad material—what his associate termed "dud" material—to be registered and to have an equal standing in the film market with the newly produced films.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is what we do not propose.

Mr. MAXTON: If that is the position, I shall be very glad to give way to the right hon. Gentleman while he explains to us exactly what his Clause means.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will. I shall no doubt find myself in agreement with the conclusions if not with the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, because, as he said, it would be outrageous to let an old film be registered if it was worn out. I quite agree, and that is what the proviso says. It says that no old, obsolete, worn-out film is to be registered, but the only exception that has to be made in a film at present in existence is if it has a current commercial value, so we are quite at one.

Mr. MAXTON: No, we are not quite at one at all. When I was referring to old and obsolete films, I was referring to all the films that would have been produced in Britain before the date of the operation of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman is surely going to agree that
there is going to be no stimulation of the British film industry over the films that were produced in the past. They are there; and if the British film industry is going to be stimulated by this Bill, it is only with reference to the films that are going to be produced in the future. But the right hon. Gentleman refuses to say, with my hon. Friends here, that the films of the past are finished.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member does not appreciate that if this proviso were omitted there would be no tax on the registration.

Mr. MAXTON: I admitted quite frankly when I got up that I had listened to the Debate with a perfectly open mind and with an anxiety to learn. I maintained that attitude right throughout the whole discussion, and sat through the whole discussion. I have listened to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister, and I have listened to you, Sir, and I become more befogged. I am claiming, as a Member of the House, that if I am wandering, it is the duty of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary to make it plain. The Clause as I read it says:
Provided that a film which has been exhibited to exhibitors or to the public before the commencement of this Act shall not be registered unless the Board of Trade, after consultation with the advisory committee hereinafter mentioned, determine that the registration of the film shall be allowed.
It can be shown, and it can be registered, and all that my friends are pressing for is that under no circumstances shall these pre-existing films be registered.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is exactly what the carrying of this Amendment will not do; quite the contrary. I must ask the hon. Member to show the same zeal for relevancy as he has for learning.

Mr. MAXTON: If I am being irrelevant, I must naturally get to my seat immediately, because I have no desire to be irrelevant, and I am not attempting to be irrelevant. I have listened to the Debate, as I have said, I am anxious to have a clear understanding of the position, and I say again that, although I bring to the consideration of the matter the average intelligence of a Member of this House who has not sat on the
Committee, neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary has made plain to me, and neither of them has shown the faintest desire to make plain, any argument for not accepting the position put forward in our Amendment. If that be the position of the average back bencher, I suggest that it is their bounden duty to accede to the request

of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and leave the matter to a free vote of the House.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the second word 'the' in line 2, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 125.

Division No. 329.]
AYES
[9.11 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gates, Percy
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Albery, Irving James
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Goff, Sir Park
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grace, John
Nelson, Sir Frank


Apsley, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oakley, T.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barnston, Major Sir Parry
Grotrian, H. Brent
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bethel, A.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Philipson, Mabel


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilcher, G.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raine, Sir Walter


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ramsden, E.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hawke, John Anthony
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Ropner, Major L.


Buchan, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hills, Major John Waller
Rye, F. G.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hilton, Cecil
Salmon, Major I


Campbell, E. T.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cassels, J. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Chapman, Sir S.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Savery, S. S.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Clayton, G. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Huntingfield, Lord
Skelton, A. N.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurd, Percy A.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Couper, J. B.
llliffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smithers, Waldron


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Long, Major Eric
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Drewe, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Eden, Captain Anthony
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Edmondson, Major A, J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tinne, J. A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
MacIntyre, Ian
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macquisten, F. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watts, Dr. T.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wells, S. R.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Merriman, F. B.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Withers, John James 
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Womersley, W. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr. Penny.


Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
 


Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardle, George D.
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Snell, Harry


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Stamford, T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Strauss, E. A.


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sullivan, J.


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Vlant, S. P.


Connolly, M.
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cove, W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dennison, R.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Forrest, W.
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Owen, Major G.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Williams. David (Swansea, E.)


Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Grundy, T. W.
Scurr, John

Colonel APPLIN: I beg to move in page 4, line 2, to leave out the words " the commencement of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words " the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven."
It will be observed that it was intended that the commencement of the Act should be the commencement of the date from which these films should rank. The Act has been postponed, and a large number of films have been produced since the date on which the Act was expected to pass the House. They will not count for the quota unless this Amendment be made; and we should debar a number of legitimate films that were produced for the purpose of the Act. If this Amendment be accepted by the House, it means that these films, which were made between the introduction of the Act and the date on which the Act was expected to pass, will be able to rank for the quota. I need not
point out to the House that it would be very hard lines on those people who have come forward and produced British films if they were not allowed to rank. For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment, for I am sure all parts of the House will desire that these films should rank.

Captain A. EVANS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to remind the House that it has been the practice in the trade to release certain films for the London area only, and at a later period, sometimes 12 months or two years, for the Provinces, and if the Clause remains as it is at present many of these films which have been greatly appreciated by the public and exhibited in London will not be allowed to be shown in the Provinces, not only to the severe disappointment of the public but to the severe financial loss of the British companies.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think, on the whole, this is a reasonable Amendment. As I understand it, a number of British films have, under the stimulus of this Bill, been produced and are in process of production at the present time. The makers of these films want to get renters to take them and exhibitors to book them for exhibition, but naturally both the renter and the exhibitor wish to be sure that the film which they take is going to count as part of the British quota. Provided that assurance is forthcoming, and provided the film is, to use a trade-term, a good box office proposition, then the renter and the exhibitor will be prepared to take it. On the other hand, if they are uncertain as to whether a film produced in the past three months of this year will be allowed to count in next year's quota, the exhibitor may say that he is not going to fill his quota with these films. It is in the interest of the British producers that there should be an opportunity for these films to be counted if they are good sound films. It is in the interest of the exhibitor and the renter— both, I think—that they should have as large a number of British films available as possible from which to satisfy both the renters' and the exhibitors' quota in the coming year. If these films are clearly allowed to count and are known to be allowed to count for quota purposes, it will enlarge the number of films available both to the renters and exhibitors. Therefore, for all these reasons, I think that it is a sound and a fair Amendment, and I am prepared to accept it. If it be challenged I propose to vote for it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think the President of the Board of Trade is making a mistake, because this is going to have a bad effect. If I read the Amendment aright, it will qualify for registration, not only the films made now, but all the former films and all the "old junk" that has been put on show.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the President of the Board of Trade certain that the Amendment will not have this effect?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am quite clear about that. It is after the 1st October, 1927. Therefore, the only films which are covered by this Amendment are not what the hon. and gallant
Gentleman terms "old junk," but are films which are actually produced in the last three months of this year. That is-all it refers to.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Though an hon. Member beside me thinks the meaning is still a little doubtful, I will take the President's version. Perhaps he is right, but it seems a little vague. Now we come to the next point. Apparently it is intended to give a stimulus to films which the hon. Member says have been produced at the back end of this year. Renters and exhibitors will take them in order to satisfy the quota, and that will not encourage the further production of British films during the next 10 or 12 years, though that is what we are aiming to do. To the extent that this provision acts as a stimulus to the films fathered by the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) it will be less of a stimulus to the production of other British films.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: May I correct the hon. and gallant Member? If he will read the Bill he will see that this provision can apply only to the first year of the quota, and that in subsequent years the renter has got to satisfy his quota from films which are registered in that actual year.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Well, take it over the next 12 months. The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman really does not alter my argument. If we pass this Amendment there will be still more films which will have the cachet of being able to fill the quota in the next 12 months. The President of the Board of Trade is really killing his own child; at any rate, he is hampering its growth for the next 12 months. This infanticide fills me with horror. The films referred to in this Amendment have been produced or are being now produced. Obviously, they need no stimulus. Let them take their chance in the open market. Do not let us enlarge the film quota for the next 12 months. Rather let us put the obligation on these producing companies of which we heard, with all their capital and all their rosy prospects; let them exert themselves to produce sufficient for the quota in the next 12 months without these films produced in the latter months of this year. The hon. and gallant Member who
moved the Amendment wants to encourage the production of British films, and his Amendment will discourage the production of films in the coming year to the extent of the number produced in the current three months.

Mr. KELLY: After the vote on the last Amendment I am rather surprised that the President of the Board of Trade should accept this Amendment. I am afraid the word he used a moment ago cannot be found either in the Bill or in the Amendment. The Amendment now moved means:
Provided that a film which has been exhibited to exhibitors or to the public before the 1st of October, 1927, shall not be registered.
What about the films that are shown to the public after the 1st October, 1927, and during this month of November? What is going to happen to them 1 I think the President of the Board of Trade spoke as though the word " after " had been in this Amendment, whereas it is the word "before," and the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) seemed to be concerned only with certain films which he had in his mind, and which I suppose he had seen at some of our cinemas', which were produced before the 1st October. He has left out of account all the films which are being shown at this time and were shown after the 1st October. I think everything tends to show that a mistake was made by the Government in not accepting the proposal we put forward on the last Amendment.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am rather surprised that the President of the Board of Trade supports this Amendment for the inclusion of the precise date1 which he refused in an Amendment moved on Clause 4. When the same date was suggested when we were arguing about sanctity of contracts he took precisely the opposite line to that which he takes now, and the House is entitled to a little more information as to why he takes one attitude on Clause 4 and another on Clause 6.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I think I ought to say, for the benefit of some of my hon. Friends, that there is very little in this Amendment one way or the other. Those who support it may think it will materially strengthen the position of the
British producer, but, for the life of me, I cannot see that it is going to have any substantial effect. The Board of Trade is given discretionary powers by the proviso which the House just now refused to delete, and therefore it is inconceivable that the kind of film referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin), which has been recently produced but which may not have been shown at the exact date, could be refused registration by the Board of Trade. I can well understand the people responsible for drafting the proviso having in their mind that the powers of the Board of Trade in this matter were for the specific purpose of covering border-line cases of this kind in respect of films which have a commercial value. Therefore I do not think there need be any serious concern about this arrangement either one way or the other. So far as I am concerned, if the hon. and gallant Member really does think the inclusion of this date is an improvement from the point of view of the producer, I have no objection, but I think the producer would not be in any way damnified were the original wording of the proviso retained. I would like to support what was said by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. J£. Brown) about the curious change in the attitude of the Government with regard to a retrospective date in this connection and in connection with Clause 4, although perhaps there is no very strong connection between the objects of the two Clauses.

Colonel DAY: We on this side have been told from the beginning that there would be no difficulty about a sufficient number of films being produced to meet the needs of the quota, and that there would be, if anything, more films than necessary. Therefore, I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the President should at this stage accept an Amendment of this kind, because it is practically admitting the contention we have made right from the start that there were not sufficient films to justify the quota Clause. I just wish to add that protest, although I do not intend to oppose this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out the words "after consultation with the advisory committee hereinafter mentioned."
It is not desired to have a long Debate on this Amendment, but we do regard it as of considerable importance. We ask the House to leave out this proviso altogether. Seeing that the Government have decided to include powers for the Board of Trade in the Bill it is a very serious thing to lay it down in the Statute that the decision of the Board of Trade as a statutory body can only be taken after consultation with an advisory committee. In any action that is taken in administering this Statute, the President of the Board of Trade will always be able to ride off on the recommendation of the advisory committee, whereas he himself ought to take full executive responsibility. Moreover, in regard to application- for registration of the type of films to which I referred earlier in the evening, namely, war films, if we have not many years hence a Labour majority and a Labour Minister, the Labour Government will be unable to refuse to count for quota the war type of films, unless they have fulfilled the Statute and consulted the advisory committee. I strongly object to that. I myself should not like to make the decision as to whether an old film of the war type should count for quota. If, however, the general policy of the Government of the day was against general propaganda by war films, I should want that Government to have the right to refuse to register old films of that type without previous consultation with the advisory committee.
The other point I wish to make is that, where the Board of Trade are compelled, by putting it in the Act in this way, to consult the Advisory Committee, there must always be. a feeling in the minds of those who are the owners of the different types of films that are submitted for registration that they may not always get a fair deal. I believe that people would trust the unfettered decision of the Board of Trade. Where, however, it is a question of settling the commercial value of the old film and then of that commercial value having to be referred to an Advisory Committee, a majority of whom may be drawn from their competitors in the industry, then, I am afraid, there may be a considerable lack of confidence among those submitting films for decision. Personally, while I have no objection at all to the principle of Advisory Committees, whom the President of the Board of Trade for the time being is free to
consult, if he so desires, while he still takes the responsibility for his act, I do object to making these important statutory decisions impossible unless by the Act he has consulted an advisory committee, a majority of whose members are representative of the trade.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not intend to repeat the excellent arguments of my colleague, but I want to put a legal question to the Solicitor-General. I should have thought it would have been far better from the administrative point of view that all reference to consultation with the Advisory Committee should be left out of the Bill, because I think it is implicit throughout that in any case of difficulty or of doubt the Board of Trade will have the option of consulting the Advisory Committee. But if, as in this case, you definitely state in the Bill that there must be in every case consultation with the Advisory Committee, it seems to me that it does two things. In the first place, it hampers enormously the effective action of the Board of Trade itself. In the second place, it seems to give an opportunity for litigation which otherwise would not arise. The House will observe that there is an appeal from this decision about registration to the High Court and that appeal would surely be complicated if the appellants' could bring in the Advisory Committee as part of their case and plead the non-consultation or improper action of the Committee. It would avoid a great deal of unnecessary litigation and make the whole position clearer if the Committee was not mentioned, while it would make no difference in actual fact. The President of the Board of Trade would be able to consult the Advisory Committee whenever he chose. He would not be bound to do so, and therefore non-consultation or inadequate action by the Committee could not be made a ground for appeal to the High Court. It is undesirable to put into an Act unnecessary words like this which give rise to litigation.
There is one other thing. Compulsory consultation with the advisory committee is desirable in many cases in this Bill, but I should have thought that this was the last place where it was required. There may be a terrific amount of work thrust on the committee. It is no use going to the committee and saying, "Do you think ' Roses of Picardy' ought to be
produced?" Having seen it, I should say, "Not on your life ! " There might be a long series of names of films put forward to the committee, 90 per cent. of which they would never have seen. Is it really suggested that the advisory committee, who are unpaid, must go and see these films, all this old junk, before they satisfy the law? I should have said that really this was certainly a place where these words should come out, and, further, that they should come out throughout the Bill and that it should be left to the Board of Trade in every case to decide.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have some little difficulty in understanding why the question propounded by the right hon. Gentleman is a legal one, but as he has done me the honour of addressing it to me, I rise to answer it. His question, as I understood it, was a double one. First, he asked whether the reference to the advisory committee would not delay matters and make things more complicated. That question answers itself. The more machinery the more elaborate the process. That is not necessarily a legal question. The next question is whether it would not increase litigation. If the Board of Trade gives some decision without consulting the advisory committee, no doubt there would be a ground for someone to go to the Courts, either at the suit of the Attorney-General or by some other method, in order to compel the Board of Trade to consult the committee. I am afraid that is inherent in every proposal to require that Government Departments shall go through a regular procedure in order to arrive at the best possible decision. The grounds upon which these words were inserted in the Bill was to ensure that the President of the Board of Trade should obtain the best possible and the most skilled assistance in deciding these practical questions which are entrusted to him. I hope that I have answered the question of the right hon. Gentleman. On the merits of the proposal, I think that everything that can be said is contained in what I have already suggested, namely, that the object is to give the President of the Board of Trade the assistance he will desire in deciding practical questions.

Colonel DAY: I have listened with interest to the somewhat evasive answer
which has been given by the Solicitor-General. We have had the same answer given before in the Committee stage, and we have never received a reply on this point which the ordinary layman could understand. The exhibitors and the renters desire to see the Advisory Committee struck out, and they would rather place themselves in the hands of the Board of Trade, because they would prefer to accept his decision or the decision of the permanent officials of his Department. Under this proposal the renters would have matters which concern their business decided by their competitors. The members of the Advisory Committee in this case would be the competitors of those who have to lay their complaints before the committee. I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can see his way to accept this Amendment, which is of vital importance to the exhibitors, many of whom have mentioned to me the question of the admission of the Advisory Committee in regard to these matters. By accepting this Amendment, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would give great satisfaction all through the trade.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the statement which the hon. Member has made about the exhibitors and renters preferring the President of the Board of Trade instead of the Advisory Committee is very complimentary.

Colonel DAY: I referred to some of the largest of them.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Advisory Committee was inserted in order that I might be able to have some assistance upon what must be very technical and commercial questions. I should have thought that upon what ought to be purely a technical and a commercial matter a committee representing the whole of the trade concerned would be more likely to form a better judgment than the President of the Board of Trade or his officials. However, I am perfectly willing to leave this matter to the free vote of the Whole House.

Captain A. EVANS: I do not know why we are asked to deprive the President of the Board of Trade of the very valuable advice of this committee.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We have not made that proposal. The right hon. Gentleman can still have the advice of the committee.

Captain EVANS: We have been told that the Bill makes it compulsory for the President of the Board of Trade to consult the Advisory Committee. Of course, it is compulsory as the Bill stands, but it is not compulsory for the President of the Board of Trade to accept the decision of the Committee or any advice it may tender to him. If on any occasion the right hon. Gentleman is placed in the position of not being able to accept the decision of the Advisory Committee he can come down to this House and defend his action, and he is quite at liberty to do that. It has been stated that it is quite impossible for the representatives on the Advisory Committee to see all the films. It is also quite impossible for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) to see all the films to which he places his signature. After all, it is an understood thing in Government Departments that the Minister responsible must rely upon the advice of his technical advisers. There is no doubt that the Advisory Committee would be guided in their decisions by people who are sufficiently skilled and experienced to advise them whether a film is a good one or a bad one. I submit that the inclusion of this Amendment has not been justified.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In regard to the function of the Advisory Committee the President of the Board of Trade said that the Committee would not in any way consider the moral side of the question, and that they would only consider the commercial and technical side. I would like to know if the Advisory Committee intend to exercise any supervision over the registration of films. One reason I am surprised at the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is that one of the non-official members of the Advisory Committee must be a woman. I do not know why that proposal was put into the Bill. I take it that it was because a woman's advice is desirable as to whether a film is fit for children to see. Personally, I think a much tighter hand should be kept on some of the films which many people consider are objectionable and improper.
I know my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) thinks that the people should be allowed to judge
these matters for themselves, but you cannot use that argument in regard to young children, and for that reason I would like some assurance on this point. Is there going to be no consideration as to the decency or good taste of the film, and are we only to consider the box office value? We must remember that these British films will be sent abroad, and therefore we should be very careful in regard to their character. I think the hon. Member for South Cardiff (.Captain A. Evans) has raised a very important point, and on this question I would like to have some further explanation.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is no Clause in this Bill which seeks to set up a censorship. If it should be desired at any time by the House of Commons to establish a new form of censorship for films, in addition to the censorship which exists under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor)—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That is voluntary.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Everything is submitted to him——

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: No.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to continue. If the House of Commons at any future date should desire to establish a censorship in addition to the censorship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, which may be voluntary, or may be partly voluntary and partly not voluntary, and also in addition to the right of the local authority—who exercise their powers under the Cinematograph Act wherever they elect to do so, and who would, I think, greatly resent the intervention of another censorship—that is a wholly separate matter, which the House must consider at the time. Certainly, it is no part of this Bill to establish such a censorship, and it would be particularly futile, if I may say so, to confine the censorship to a very limited number of films only.

Mr. E. BROWN: The Solicitor-General, in the last sentence of his speech just now, said it was desirable that the President of the Board of Trade should have the best, assistance possible. Surely, the Bill with this provision in it does not give the necessary freedom of choice. As I understand it, this Advisory Committee is to be set up, and persons are to sit on it for periods not exceeding three years. There are to be eight representatives of the interests—two of the film makers, two of the renters, and four of the exhibitors—and five persons who have no pecuniary interest, of whom, one must be a woman, and one the chairman. This greatly narrows the field of advice. The House will agree that the President of the Board of Trade may desire to go to other people outside the Advisory Committee for advice, and it would be

very awkward if, having a statutory body of this kind to give him advice, he desired other advice and went against the advice of the Advisory Committee. It is surely better that the President of the Board of Trade, in the working of his own Act, should be unfettered in his choice of advice. Moreover, the fact that eight of the 13 members of the Committee will be interested in the trade is another very powerful argument in favour of adopting this Amendment, and leaving the President free to take advice wherever he chooses.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 129.

Division No. 330.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Albery, Irving James
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hills, Major John Waller


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hilton, Cecil


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Apsley, Lord
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Drewe, C.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Eden, Captain Anthony
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bethel, A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Huntingfield, Lord


Betterton, Henry B.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hurd, Percy A.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Illffe, Sir Edward M.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ford, Sir P. J.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Briggs, J. Harold
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Brocklebank, C. E. R
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lamb, J. Q.


Buchan, John
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gates, Percy
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Bullock, Captain M.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loder, J. de V


Caine, Gordon Hall
Goff, Sir Park
Long, Major Eric


Campbell, E. T.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Cassels, J. D.
Grace, John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
MacIntyre, I.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Grotrian, H. Brent
McLean, Major A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Chapman, Sir S.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macquisten, F. A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hammersley, S. S.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Clayton, G. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Margesson, Captain D.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hawke, John Anthony
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cope, Major William
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Meller, R. J.


Couper, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Merriman, F. B.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Milne. J. S. Wardlaw-


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Salmon, Major I.
Tinne, J. A.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sandon, Lord
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Savery, S. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Shepperson, E. W.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Oakley, T.
Skelton, A. N.
Watts, Dr. T.


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wells, S. R.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Penny, Frederick George
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smithers, Waldron
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Somervilie, A. A. (Windsor)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Philipson, Mabel
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Pilcher, G.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Withers, John James


Raine, Sir Walter
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wolmer, Viscount


Ramsden, E.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Womersley, W. J.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge — Hyde)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Ropner, Major L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfred



Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Capt. Arthur Evans and Mr. Herbert


Rye, F. G.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Williams.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Broad. F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Strauss, E. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan. J


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, T.
Thomson Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellfy)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Forrest, W.
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Owen, Major G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Groves, T.
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr Whiteley.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, after the word "fee," to insert the words "not exceeding one pound."
In this Amendment we are asking that the Board of Trade, instead of leaving the amount charged for registration in
the vague way that it is in the Bill at present, should put in such, a figure that those applying for registration will have some idea of the amount they will have to pay. I ask that the charge shall not exceed £l.

Colonel DAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I understand that this is the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman said he would accept.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member is quite right. I gave an undertaking that I would put in an appropriate Amendment to stereotype the budget which I unfolded in Committee. It would not be convenient to take an Amendment at this stage. The Convenient course is to deal with all the fees in a single Clause. I propose to take an Amendment which will come in Clause 28, line 29, after the word "date," to insert the words
The fees payable on application for registration and or licences shall not exceed those specified in the second Schedule of the Act.
Then I should insert a Schedule setting out the fees as follows:
Application for registration of film, one guinea.
Application for renters licence, five guineas.
Application for exhibitors licence, one guinea for each theatre.
If this Amendment be withdrawn, all the fees can be covered at the appropriate time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken that course, but I would ask him to do another thing. In the case of serial films a separate guinea licence has to be taken out for each part. They sometimes run to about a dozen parts. I am told these films are so cheap that they do not bear the six or twelve guinea fee. I want to know whether in drawing up this table of fees the right hon. Gentleman can see that serials are put in at a reasonable price. It is possible to argue that the fee should vary with the length or the cost of the film or something of that sort, but we are not doing that. The right hon. Gentleman is taking a dead rate fee. Would it not be possible in doing that to
treat serial films, which are exceptionally cheap, on a scale which would allow of their being commercially profitable?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The fee is not 16 guineas. It is a guinea per film. The only five guinea fee is for the renters' licence. A serial film is an ordinary film which happens to form one of a series. It would probably be readily booked and would be a pretty valuable film if it had one of the great stars in it and it would pay a registration fee of a guinea a time.

Colonel DAY: Is it the intention to charge one guinea for the whole serial, or one guinea for each instalment? Each instalment will not be more than one of these long films specified.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Of course it will not, but each instalment is a separate film and has to be separately registered, and while one film of 1,500 or 2,000 feet is not as long as a film of 8,000 feet, yet anyone of the series is as long as an ordinary short film.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made:

In page 4, line 24, leave out the words "fourteen days" and insert instead thereof the words " six weeks."— [Colonel Day.]

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, at the end, to insert the words
(6) In the event of the trade show of any film being regarded by the advisory committee as not being of a standard of competitive quality it shall be competent for them to submit within fourteen days of the presentation of such a film to the exhibitors a report to the Board of Trade to that effect, and if, in the opinion of the Board or some authority deputed by them, it is expedient to withhold registration of such a film for quota purposes the committee may direct the accredited authority accordingly.
The first Sub-section gives to the licensing Committee the duty of passing judgment upon the old films, and the Amendment asks that the same duty shall be allotted to the Advisory Committee in the case of new films. When we come to Clause 26, we find very great difficulty In defining what is a British company and what is a British film. The Advisory Committee were eminently qualified to prevent bogus films from being used to fill the quota. I think it may be said
that only a few films are in question, but, if the Amendment be accepted, it will not be necessary for the Advisory Committee to be present at each trade show and it will be able to call upon any exhibitor to meet the Advisory Committee, who can then pronounce judgment.

Viscount SANDON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I trust my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, for it is one that I cannot possibly accept. Whatever may be his idea as to the limited scope of what he has in mind, there is no doubt as to the enormous work which he is putting upon the Advisory Committee, for his Amendment proposes that every single film, British or foreign, which comes to a trade show, that is 800 or 900 films in the course of a year, shall be seen by the Advisory Committee or possibly by the President of the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade would not have very much time left for other work. [An HON. MEMBER: "Time for leisure!"] I think I might get stale. If we had to do it, what are we to decide? We are to decide whether the film comes up to the standard of competitive quality. I am very keen, as my hon. Friend is, to see the best films shown, whether they are British or whether they are foreign, but I am sure of this, that if there are two sets of people who can decide upon the competitive quality of the film, the one is, the man who rents it in order to exhibit it, and the other, the public who go and see it. I am quite sure that no Committee, however erudite, however moral, however representative, could fulfil that task.

Colonel DAY: This is one of the few occasions on which I find myself in absolute agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. We spent many days on the Bill upstairs, and we found ourselves with differing opinions on many occasions. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman who proposed this censorship could not have given it very serious thought; otherwise, he would not have put the Amendment down. I hope we shall not, at this time
of night, be forced to divide against him.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I always admire the courage of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) and the Noble Lord the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) for the way in which they bring this subject forward. It is evidently very near to their hearts. They had it in Committee and got two votes, and we are having it now.

Viscount SANDON: The right hon. and gallant Member is wrong. What we had in Committee and on which we secured two votes was something quite different. It was brought on in an earlier part of the Bill on the censorship issue. The reason only two votes were given was that we asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, which was refused, and the Opposition, not ourselves, were the two supporting it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Windsor have the morals of this country at heart, and I think it is right that we should recognise it. The rest of the House have little interest in these matters. The two hon. Members consistently uphold, at all hazards, this question and bring it forward, and I admire them for it and their consistency. The best censor of films is the public which goes to see them, You cannot possibly trust even the most perfect human being to know what should or should not be shown. We have not yet got a censorship of books or pictures but the public, somehow, by dint of good taste, or reference in some cases to the Law Courts, do manage to keep these things clean and decent. The best way in which we can get decent films is to let the public have the choice, and we may rest assured that in the long run they will establish a standard that will be a credit to the country.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the opinion expressed by the President of the Board of Trade and the unanimity of feeling expressed on this matter, I feel that it will be useless to press the Amendment. I can quite understand the glee of hon. Members opposite with regard to any emasculation of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 7.—(Inspection of register, etc.)

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider this Amendment seriously. During the Committee stage it was on Clause 7 that he made the most important concession to the Opposition which he made during the passage of the Bill, namely, the publication in the Board of Trade Journal of the Registration of Films. Instead of the exhibitors having on all occasions to go and search the Register of the Board of Trade, they were told that week after week in the Board of Trade Journal there would be publication of the names, titles and descriptions of every film registered. That makes the treatment of registration much simpler. It is easy for an exhibitor in the Orkney Islands or elsewhere to know whether or not a film has been registered by seeing it in the Board of Trade Journal. In the Board of Trade Journal the Board of Trade has evidence of registration, and that being so, we can leave out Clause 7, which deals with the inspection of the Register. The inspection of the Register is no longer necessary. What is necessary is the inspection of the Board of Trade Journal. Even in the Law Courts the Board of Trade Journal or an extract from it is considered sufficient evidence. Why then must we have any inspection of the register?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Cannot the right hon. and gallant Member see that the only effect of carrying his Amendment would be to prevent a number of exhibitors or renters being able to inspect the register? It does not follow that anyone will inspect the register. It only says that the register must be kept open by the Board of Trade and be available for inspection by anyone.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The President of the Board of Trade has not read the whole of the Clause. If the register was purely nominal well and good; but it is not. The right hon. Gentleman might be able to make an alteration in Sub-section (3) which will meet my case. It says:
The production of the Board of Trade Journal containing the notification or a certificate of registration and a copy of any entry purporting to be certified as a true copy by such officer as aforesaid shall in all legal proceedings be evidence of the matters stated therein.
If the Board of Trade Journal alone was taken in all legal proceedings as evidence of the matters stated therein it would meet my point of view. In that case inspection . of the register would be purely voluntary.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think I can meet the right hon. and gallant Member. I agree that this Clause is not in the best drafting form, and what we meant in Committee to say in Subsection (3) was that the Board of Trade Journal, or the certificate of registration, or a certified copy of the entry in the register, should be complete evidence of anything stated therein. That, I think, is the proper form in which Sub-section (3) should take. I have had drafted an Amendment to Sub-section (3) in this form:
The registration of a film may be proved by the production of a copy of the Board of Trade Journal containing a notification of the registration of the film, or of the certificate of the registration, or of a certified copy of the entry in the register relating to the film.
If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, instead of moving the deletion of the Clause, would move an Amendment to this effect or permit me to move it to Sub-section (3) in this form, I shall be giving him exactly what he now suggests.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is exactly what I want, and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 5 and 6, and to insert instead thereof the words:
(3) The registration of a film may be proved by the production of a copy of the Board of Trade Journal containing a notification of the registration of the film, or, of a certificate of the registration, or of a certified copy of the entry in the register relating to the film.

Mr. SPEAKER: What becomes of the rest of Sub-section (3)?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We shall have to keep in the words:
and a copy of any entry purporting to be-certified as a true copy by such officer as aforesaid shall in all legal proceedings be evidence of the matters stated therein without proof of the signature or authority of the person signing it.
We shall want that. If there is an extract signed by the Board of Trade, you do not want the signature of the person signing it to be formally proved.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is a little difficult to follow the reading of this manuscript Amendment. What I want to know is whether it will be sufficient, in legal proceedings, to prove the registration of a film by producing a copy of the Board of Trade Journal showing that registration. I was rather afraid, from what the President of the Board of Trade said, that something more would be necessary. I want to avoid the necessity of producing anything more than a copy of the Board of Trade Journal showing the registration. I know the passion of all these officials for certified copies, in order to give them work. I want to get rid of that sort of thing. The right hon. Gentleman, while wishing to get rid of all that flummery and to get back to the Board of Trade Journal, I fear, is tying himself up, and what I suggest is that instead of merely leaving out lines 5 and 6, the whole of the rest of the Subsection be left out and that the production of the Board of Trade Journal shall be sufficient in a Court of law.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am quite satisfied that what I have suggested is correct. The Board of Trade Journal is evidence by itself. You can produce a certificate of registration or a certified copy of the entry in the register.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: All three?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Any of them, whichever you like. The remaining words of the Clause are still necessary, because if you produce a certified copy you want that to carry its authenticity on the face of it; otherwise you would have to produce the gentleman who certified.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why anyone should want to get a certified copy when he can get the Board of Trade Journal for a shilling?

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 8.—(Correction of Register.)

Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word " effect," in line 21, to the end of line 26.
This Clause deals with the correction of the register either because the length of the film has been altered or because of some inaccuracy at the time of registration. The Clause gives the power to alter the certificate. Sub-section (2) says that on the issue of an amended certificate the former certificate shall cease to have effect. We ask in our Amendment that the Sub-section should stop there. There is no need for the words which follow:
except that the Board of Trade may in any particular case allow the film to be counted for the purposes of the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to renters' and exhibitors' quotas as being of the length originally registered, or as a British film, as the case may be.
It does not appear to us that there is any justification for giving the Board of Trade the power of altering the certificate and then of counting this particular film in its original form as complying with the quota. This appeared to us at one stage as a matter in which the Board of Trade might well have consulted the advisory committee, but they have not seen fit to provide for that, and we hold that it is quite sufficient to have the words down to the word "effect."

Colonel DAY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has apprehended what his Amendment would do or what is the object of the words which he proposes to omit. The object is that a renter or exhibitor who has bona fide taken a film as being of a given length or character shall not be prejudiced. That, surely, is right. The renter or exhibitor could not know that the film was of a different length from the registered length. He could not know that it was not a British film, though registered as such. The object of the words is that anybody who, in good faith, has entered into a transaction, basing himself upon the registered character of the film, shall be able to maintain his position and shall be able to count the film for quota in spite of the fact that it differs from the original. If I were to accept the Amendment it would mean that, although the exhibitor or renter had taken the film in good faith, he would no longer be able to count it for quota.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There is a great deal of sound sense in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but it does not apply to the words in the Bill. We think that when a renter or exhibitor finds that the film he has bought is not the right thing he ought not to be accounted a criminal because his quota is not reached for that reason. If the right hon. Gentleman reads these words he will find that it will depend on the Board of Trade as to whether such a person is accounted a criminal or not. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he means to exempt every man who has made a bona fide mistake—every innocent person—but why should he state in the Bill that every innocent person is to escape? What we object to is leaving matters which may lead to criminal prosecutions, which, in fact, ought to lead to criminal prosecutions, absolutely to the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman. I understand he is going to make a considerable concession later on by no longer counting changes in film lengths of less than 10 per cent., so that there will not be many alterations in the lengths of films requiring a correction of the register. But there will still be a few alterations. Supposing there is a case where the renter has bought from the producer a film which ought to be 6,000 feet but when it is actually sold to him it turns out to be 5,000 feet. He bona fide bought it at 6,000 feet, but finds it is only 5,000 feet, and the right hon. Gentleman says that that man ought, as a bona fide purchaser, to be relieved of the criminal prosecution which should ensue. That is only one case, unfortunately. I am thinking of the small exhibitor who takes the second or third run of a film. Films, I am told, which started at 2,000 feet often enough come to the third or fourth man at something like 1,200 feet. They have been cut down

and cut down till the people who look at the film hardly see there is any sequence in it. That is the worst of seeing a film on its fourth run.

Captain A. EVANS: Before that process is put into operation, the film is returned to the renting company, re-edited, and sent out again.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The exhibitor has bought it for, say, 2,000 feet from the renter, and long before it gets to him it turns out to be a much shorter film. There, too, the man is damnified if he cannot get relief. If he has counted 2,000 feet for his quota, and it turns out that it is only 1,200 feet, if he cannot get relief, he is liable to all the pains and penalties under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman in such a case would say: " I have no intention whatever of bullying such a man as that or of running him in." Then why allow all these risks, and make the only exceptions to people who can get to the Board of Trade and persuade them that they ought not to be prosecuted 1 It is easy for the big man with a 6,000 feet super-film to get to the Board of Trade, and to get excused, but it is the small man of whom I am thinking. There are numbers of them, and I believe that they should have a right and not a charity given from the Board of Trade. We want to leave out these words, because the relaxation of the rule is left to the personal decision of the President of the Board of Trade. I object to that, and I believe that these people ought not to be injured in what they bought for quota by the fact that when it does turn up it is less in length than it ought to be.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 119.

Division No. 331.]
AYES.
[10.44 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bethel, A.
Bullock, Captain M.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Betterton, Henry B.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Albery, Irving James
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Calne, Gordon Hall


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Campbell, E. T.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cassels, J. D.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Apsley, Lord
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Briggs, J. Harold
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Prtsmth, S.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Buchan, John
Chapman, Sir S.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Buckingham, Sir H.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Clayton, G. C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hope. Sir Harry (Forfar)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cope, Major William
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ropner, Major L.


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Huntingfield, Lord
Salmon, Major I.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sandon, Lord


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovl')
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Savery, S. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement
Shepperson, E. W.


Drewe, C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skelton, A. N.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lamb, J. Q.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Smithers, Waldron


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Loder, J. de V.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Long, Major Eric
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Forrest, W.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
MacIntyre, Ian
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Fraser, Captain Ian
McLean, Major A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Ganzoni, Sir John.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Gates, Percy
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Captain D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Grace, John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Meller, R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Merriman, F. B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Watts, Dr. T.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wells, S. R.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dalrymple


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Wiggins, William Martin


Hacking. Captain Douglas H.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Williams, Herbert G, (Reading)


Hammersley, S. S.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nelson, Sir Frank
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Harrison, G. J. C.
Oakley, T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Withers, John James


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wolmer, Viscount


Hawke, John Anthony
Penny, Frederick George
Womersley, W. J.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Philipson, Mabel
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pilcher, G.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Power, Sir John Cecil



Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Price, Major C. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Raine, Sir Walter
Capt. Bowyer and Mr. F. C.


Hilton, Cecil
Ramsden, E.
Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromley, J.
Duncan, C.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dunnico, H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hilllsbro')
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Buchanan, G.
Gibbins, Joseph


Baker, Walter
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Gillett, George M.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cape, Thomas
Gosling, Harry


Barnes, A.
Charleton, H. C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Batey, Joseph
Cluse, W. S.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Bondfield, Margaret
Connolly, M.
Greenall, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dalton, Hugh
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Broad, F. A.
Day, Colonel Harry
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bromfield, William
Dennison, R.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)




Groves, T.
Montague, Frederick
Sullivan, J


Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Murnin, H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Naylor, T. E.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Hardle, George D.
Oliver, George Harold
Thurtle, Ernest


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Owen, Major G.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hayday, Arthur
Palln, John Henry
Townend, A. E.


Hayes, John Henry
Paling, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Vlant, S. P.


Hirst, G. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Riley, Ben
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Welsh, J. C.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Rose, Frank H.
Westwood, J.


Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Kennedy, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Whiteley, W.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scurr, John
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Kirkwood. D
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Lansbury, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lawrence, Susan
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lawson, John James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lowth, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lunn, William
Snell, Harry
Wright, W.


Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


MacLaren, Andrew
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles



Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Stamford, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


March, S.
Stephen, Campbell
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


Maxton, James
Strauss, E. A.
Henderson.

CLAUSE 9.—(Power to require reference to High Court.)

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, to leave out the words, " subject to rules of court."
We are dealing now with the only rights of any person aggrieved under this new Bill. I need hardly tell the House that a new Bill like this before very long will find many people aggrieved. We British subjects still have some right, and this Clause deals with those rights. It deals with them exactly as one would expect the Board of Trade to deal with the rights of individuals in this country, that is to say, it does its best to deprive them of any possibility of securing an appeal from the decision of the President. The Clause itself runs:
If any person is aggrieved by the refusal of the Beard of Trade to register a film, or to register a film as a British film, or by a decision of the Board to correct the registration of a film, the matter shall, subject to rules of Court, be referred by the Board of Trade to the High Court for determination.
That looks as though the subject has an appeal to the High Court. Unfortunately, it means nothing of the sort. I wish we had more lawyers on this side to explain the matter, because they would do it more ably than I can,, but I understand this is the position, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. When a case is sent to the High Court subject to rules of Court, those rules of Court in most cases refer the matter to the
arbitration of some barrister, who really treats the case as an arbitration case, and from whose decision there is, in this case, no appeal. Instead of the subject having the right of appeal to the High Court, all he really has is the right of appeal to some barrister in what amounts to an arbitration Court. Not only that, but the rules of Court are very numerous, very complicated,, and very apt to change. There are already rules in existence to such an extent that a volume of 2,500 pages is needed to contain them. The High Court will draw up rules in this case covering a few more hundred pages. They can be changed without Parliament knowing anything about it. Consequently, the aggrieved subject cannot know the law. His lawyer will find it very difficult to discover under what procedure the case will be heard, or rather will have to keep up to date with an agility which only very highly paid lawyers can manage, so that the smaller exhibitors will find it very difficult to secure anybody who knows the law. May I read, as I am not a lawyer, what has been sent to me on this point:
It may not be known to the House that, where a High Court Judge has a case of this kind before him, it is a rule of the Court to refer it to an Official Referee, probably some barrister. This is a rule under the Arbitration Act of 1889 issued in 1889 and 1892. These rules are supposed to be simple, but few, if any, lawyers understand them.
It seems to me better therefore to leave out these words and leave to the aggrieved citizen the normal method of
appeal to the High Court, which is supposed to protect him against injustice of any Department. Not only in this Act, but in many others, we are getting more and more to depend upon the administrative action and ipse dixit of a department and to deprive the individual of his lawful access to the Courts to right his wrongs. That often does lead to increased efficiency. It is much easier for the Department, but it does detract from the rights which the citizens of this country have had up to now, which they hold very jealously, and which we in this House should do our best to protect.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If it were not for the wealth of imagination which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has managed to display on this Amendment, it would be possible to dispose of it in half a minute. The only object in including these words is to enable the Lord Chancellor or rather the Rules Committee, composed of two Judges, and of representatives of the solicitors' branch of the profession, to make rules to specify a time limit within which notice must be given. It is a complete mare's nest to suggest that such eases would go to a barrister. They will go tp a Judge. Official Referees decide such matters of fact as complicated financial questions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it from me that there is no possibility of anybody else deciding these cases except a Judge or Judges of the High Court, and that that assurance will be acceptable. If not, I will give him more information when the House next meets.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: We prefer to have fuller information when the House meets again.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

HONOURS (SALE).

Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. THURTLE: I desire to raise a question concerning the conferring of titles for payment to party funds. It is a matter of common knowledge that this practice has been very prevalent in our political life in the past, and it became so widespread at the time of the Coalition Government that a Royal Commission was appointed to deal with the matter. That Commission reported, and made certain recommendations for restricting or doing away with the practice. Those of us who have some regard for the purity of public life, and who regard this as a particular nauseating form of political corruption, hoped that this practice had come to an end. I notice that a rather animated journalistic quarrel has now developed between the " Morning Post " and the " Daily Mail " newspapers, and as a result of that quarrel there is reason to believe that the practice of selling honours is still being practised by the present Government. The " Daily Mail " has come out with a clear and definite charge against the present Government that they are continuing the selling of honours in return for payment to party funds. I will give the terms of the charge, which lack nothing in regard to definiteness. The charge is contained in a leading article in the " Daily Mail " of 15th August last, in which the following passage occurs:
The charge against Mr. Lloyd George is that he recruited the funds of his party through the bestowal of honours. The reply is that the Conservative party has done and is doing exactly the same thing.
The House will note the employment of the present tense. There is no question of past history; the "Daily Mail" says specifically that it is being done at the present time. The "Daily Mail" goes on further to say this:
We have called upon the Conservative party to allow a searching independent investigation into its financial affairs during the last five years. We are prepared to make the period the last four years, so that there may be no inquiry beyond the period when the present Leaders of the Conservative party had charge of its finance. There should be no difficulty about this in a party which has lately and loudly proclaimed its purity. The inquiry"—
and this is a definite charge—
The inquiry will reveal striking instances of the conferment of honours on men who have made large contributions to the Conservative party funds.
That is the charge. It is as clear and definite as a charge possibly could be, and I ask, what is the Conservative party going to do about it? I would point out that there is no question here of an obscure publication with a negligible circulation, which might very properly be ignored. The "Daily Mail" is a paper with the largest circulation in the country, running, I believe, into several millions, and it penetrates into practically every village and hamlet in the country—[An HON. MEMBER: "And on the Continent! "]—and on the Continent too, as my hon. Friend reminds me. A paper like that cannot be dismissed as an unimportant publication, and it is really incumbent upon the Government to make some reply to it. I want to know what the Government is going to do. Apparently, from the attitude of the Prime Minister when I questioned him on this matter last week, there is a disposition on their part to do nothing at all. If the Conservative party really has a reply to this charge of the " Daily Mail," a reply which will show that the charge of the " Daily Mail " is ill-founded and false, then I submit that, not only in its own interests—which may not be so important—but in the interests of public life, the Government ought to come forward and produce such evidence as will prove the falsity of the " Daily Mail's " charges. If it takes no action at all, then I submit that the public will be justified in assuming that the charges are true in substance and in fact.
There is an old saying that silence gives consent. It is a well-known fact in British public life that, if the personal honour of a public man is assailed in responsible quarters and he does not bring forward a reply to that attack, then the worst is assumed. I submit that the same thing applies to the reputation of a Government. If the honour of a Government is assailed, as the honour of this Government is assailed in this instance, from a responsible quarter, and no reply is given to that charge, then I say we are justified in assuming the worst. [Interruption.] I do not know that I have caught the interruptions aright, but certainly the Conservative Government has had a great deal to thank the " Daily Mail " for in the past, when we remember the Red Letter. Anyhow, my case is not an elaborate one. I have
stated it. I want to know what the Government is going to do about the matter. What will the ordinary plain men and women of this country think— [An Hon. Member: "Nothing! "] That is the hon. Member's opinion of the plain men and women of this country. He thinks that they never think; let him wait and see. What will the ordinary plain men and women of this country think if, in the case of a grave charge like this, the Government does nothing at all? Last year the Conservative party instituted a malicious attack against the Labour party's method of obtaining funds from the trade unions. The Conservative party's sense of propriety is shocked at the idea that the Labour party might be obtaining a few pence—I speak comparatively—from trade unionists in a manner which they think improper. This is not a question of pence. It is a charge that the Conservative party is obtaining large sums of money by the despicable method of selling honours and, unless there is a definite rebuttal of that charge, the present Government stands convicted of continuing to sell honours and at the same time of colossal hypocrisy.

Colonel GIBBS (Treasurer of the Household): I must first apologise to the hon. Member for the absence of the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, who were quite unaware that he was going to bring up this matter to-night. I must commence the few remarks I have to make by referring to the statement on which the hon. Member has based his remarks. He says large sums of money have been obtained by the despicable method of selling honours. I maintain, standing here at this Box, that there is not one single word of truth in it. It is completely false from beginning to end. It is touching to me to find the confidence which the hon. Member and some of his friends have in the "Daily Mail." He says we have been assailed in a responsible quarter, and that responsible quarter appears to be the " Daily Mail." For my part, and for the part of my friends, I do not suppose it matters in the least what the " Daily Mail " says. The Prime Minister himself said on Thursday that if he were to make inquiries into all the charges that appear in the Press—[Interruption.] We all know that a Royal Commission was appointed. They recom-
mended that a Committee should be set up. That is the system that has been continued ever since, by the Government that was in office then, the Government that succeeded it, the Labour Government that succeeded it, and the present Government which succeeded the Labour Government. That is the system that has been established by usage, and that is the only one we know about or will have anything to do with.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to add one remark to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us. The quarrel now is between the " Daily Mail " and the Government. My hon. Friend only relied on the "Daily Mail." [Interruption.] I heard every word of his speech, which is more than hon. Members did who came in late. The Government is willing now to jeer at the " Daily Mail " and to twit us with paying attention to what it says. At the last General Election they owed hundreds of thousands of votes to the " Daily Mail," and to its influence in frightening the people. The " Daily Mail," by its exposure of the so-called Zinovieff letter —[An Hon. Member: " Did you believe that?"]—obtained scores of thousands of votes for the present Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "You were anti-Socialist yourself! "] I am very glad of that interruption. The hon. Member said I was anti-Socialist. When I stood I had no Labour candidate against me, and I said I would support the Labour Government as long as it legislated in the interests of the whole of the people. I was attacked upon the grounds of the Zinovieff letter, and my majority was cut down from 5,000 to only 2,500 because of that Zinovieff letter. Scores of my best supporters voted against me, not because they wished to vote for a Conservative Government, but because of this terrible plot from Moscow. The hon. and gallant Member for Stirling and Clackmannan, Western (Captain Fanshawe), just now made a remark about trade unions. I rather think he, a Member of Parliament, is fathering a so-called non-political union among the miners in his Division, and they are getting funds from the Sailors' and Firemen's Union. [Interruption.]

Captain FANSHAWE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought what he thinks is a charge against me, but it is
not a charge at all. I 'have taken a certain responsibility for a large number of miners in West Stirlingshire, whom I have enabled to see the other side of the picture, an alternative trade union system. I did not want to speak on this subject to-night, but I thought that I might perhaps say a few words upon the subject on Wednesday. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any cause to twit anybody with bringing a new form of trade unionism before the miners. Of course, the hon. and gallant Member may think so, but I do not. 1 say it is not for him to judge the merits of this other form of trade unionism, but for the miners in my constituency to judge. I have raised funds—I have told my miners on the public platform—in order to have this alternative system put before them. I leave it at that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I gave way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I did not expect him to make a long speech.

Captain FANSHAWE: I regard this as a sort of charge made against me for doing something which I consider to be entirely right. I am simply rebutting this charge made against me, and I say, and I repeat it, that I am responsible for the raising of this money in order to put this alternative point of view before my miners in West Stirlingshire. I consider this to be my bounden duty. I entirely rebut the charge.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not say the hon. and gallant Gentleman had got money from the trade union, but I called attention to the organisation he is fathering. The charge of the sale of honours is made in a leading article of the " Daily Mail." The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says there is not a word of truth in it, and we are entitled to accept it.

Captain FANSHAWE: May I ask if the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite will withdraw the remarks he made about me?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not note any personal reflection upon the hon. Member. I thought it was good-humoured chaff.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Of course I naturally withdraw if I have hurt the hon. and gallant Member's feelings. I make no accusation of corruption o>r anything of that sort. The Government must take more note of this matter than the word of the right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol "West (Colonel Gibbs). He is from the Whips' Office, but his responsibility is limited. I say that without any offence to him. He has certain duties. The only way in which the Government can possibly satisfy public opinion is by ordering an impartial inquiry into these charges; or their alternative is to bring the editor of the newspaper to the Bar of the House, and let him answer. They have only those two things to do: either to have an investigation by an impartial -committee or to bring the editor of the newspaper to the Bar of the House.

Mr. J. JONES: Some of the injured innocents of the House have given expression to their views, and the subject would be fitting for one of the imaginative writers in the columns of the " Daily Mail." Most of the writers in the " Daily Mail " have great imagination, particularly when they refer to the Labour movement. In so far as we are concerned, all our cards are on the table. Where our money comes from and where it goes to is a matter of annual report. We know where yours comes from, but we do not know where it goes to. We are only asking for the facts, but we know that facts can be very stubborn things. Some of the hon. Members opposite, ex-Prime Ministers, have identified themselves with the claim that political parties should be compelled to place their financial cards on the table. No man or woman in this House, and no hon. or right hon. Member would question the integrity of Lord Rosebery. He has demanded that the facts should be placed before the people. He, with his experience, points out that it is a fact that honours are being sold. There are some hon. Members of this House who have paid something for being here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Election expenses!"] i have never had anything with which to buy a seat. I have had to buy it with the power of my own personality. I say to hon. Members opposite, " Come and contest against me." With all your
money thick upon you, you would not stand a cat's chance. I associate myself with the demand for an inquiry. Are you afraid of Lord Northcliffe launching charges against you? [HON. MEMBERS: "He is dead !"] His successor is not. It does not matter what they call themselves, Lord Neverworks will do for me. Are you afraid of the proprietors of the "Daily Mail" when they charge you with an offence? They are too big to attack, but when an ordinary labouring man attacks a minor member of the Government in an obscure journal he is hauled up at the Old Bailey for criminal libel. Hon. Members opposite jeer when some of us make a comparison between the methods they adopt and the methods we have to adopt. Our trade unions have to make an annual report to the Registrar-General of their funds and how they spend them. You believe the charges made against the trade unions by the "Daily Mail," you broadcast them throughout the country and make them public on every party platform. They are used as political propaganda by hon. Members of the opposite party. [An HON. MEMBER: " Do you believe them?"] Why should I? [An Hon. Member: "Why do you believe this charge?"] Wait a moment. Let us have the facts. We are compelled by Statute to send an annual return to the Registrar-General. Every trade union in the country has to do this, and every hon. Member opposite knows that we are compelled by law to send our balance sheets to the Registrar-General every year. The facts are there.
All we ask is that you shall be compelled to do the same. You shun the light because your deeds are evil. I make no apology for that statement, because it is true. If it is not true, why do you not tackle these people 1 You will tackle an obscure journal,, and send the editor and; writers to prison. But here is a great paper which generally backs you up, and generally misrepresents us from one end of Britain to the other, and yet when they attack you and charge you with what is a criminal offence, namely, that honours in this country are sold—honours which should only be won by ability, capacity and service—you take no action. Why do you not bring the editor and the proprietor of the " Daily Mail " to the Bar 1 I do not mean the bar outside, although that
is perhaps of more use than the other. This is a very serious public implication, and you are not scoring any points by jeering at what I am saying. I believe seriously you have no right to claim to be the gentlemen of England, the party of the respectables, whilst you are honestly condemned by your silence, showing that you are selling honours now and that people can get into positions in this country merely because of their bank balances. We demand that you should challenge the people who are making those statements, bring them to the Bar of this House,, and demand an apology and a withdrawal of the charges they are making.

Lord APSLEY: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member who has just spoken on the sincerity with which he delivered his speech. At the same time, I think he has not stated quite the whole case of the Labour Party. Trade union funds, it is true, are governed by law, but they are not the only source of income of the Labour Party. There are others, and if all the cards are to be put on the table, those cards also ought
to be there. The hon. Member who raised this question asked a plain and simple question of the Government and the Government gave a plain and simple reply. If hon. Members opposite are not satisfied with the reply, I hope they will raise the question again and get an even more definite reply, perhaps from the Prime Minister himself—if they need it. But at the same time, when they have got that reply I hope they will communicate it to their supporters and ask them to play the game in this question. Time after time Conservative Members of Parliament in their constituencies are being asked questions by constituents and supporters. It is obvious that the questioners cannot understand the difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal party during the Coalition. We are being made the scapegoats for the actions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and—

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.